The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León has acquitted a man who was convicted of assault, when he was still leading the corporation, in 2023. The then councilor suffered a blow to the face, among several insults, one night in a bar in the city of Soria by a drunken man. The individual was initially convicted by the Provincial Court of Soria, but the regional court admitted his appeal, based on the fact that there are contradictions in the testimonial evidence of that night and that a conclusive identification of the author is missing. The subject had been convicted of a crime of attack against authority and another of minor injuries.
The events occurred around twelve-thirty at night on June 11, 2023, when the accused entered a well-known restaurant in the Plaza Mayor of Soria and there he met the councilor. The initial sentence of the Provincial Court states that “the accused, guided with the intention of undermining the principle of authority and the physical integrity of the mayor, went towards where he was saying ‘prevaricator, son of a bitch’, and pounced on him, punching him in the left jaw area and another that did not hit him.” This blow caused him to “suffer injuries consisting of superficial trauma, and he did not go to the doctor for these events, which took six days to heal from basic damage according to the forensic report.” The aggressor “was slightly affected by alcohol consumption,” stated the court ruling, which imposed “a sentence of one year and three months in prison, and a seven-month fine with a daily fee of 15 euros” and “one month fine with a daily fee of 15 euros,” in addition to compensation of 240 euros. Instead, they acquitted him of the crime of libel attributed to him.
This ruling has been refuted by the Superior Court of Castilla y León after the suspect appealed that resolution of the Provincial Court. The regional court has based itself on formal issues such as that the premises’ security cameras did not include recordings and that some of these recordings could not be used, in addition to having perceived “contradictions” between the witnesses who tried to endorse the authenticity of the attack by the accused. One of them, a friend of the , admitted that he was not sure that the accused was the one who attacked Martínez, because in the session he was wearing glasses that he was not wearing on that night in which he was accused and that perhaps he had “some more beard.” The same thing happens with other witnesses who differed about the height of the alleged aggressor or what he was wearing, so the court has opted for the in doubt, for the defendantmaxim of law that defends the accused or prisoner when the evidence is not absolutely conclusive against him. The court observes that “the Police statement is extremely surprising, not to say surprising” due to its imprecision.
The accused defended himself by stating that he does not follow current politics and that he had been away from Soria for many years, so he would not have recognized the mayor in a bar and, even less, would he have tried to punch him. At night, he added, he suffered from “gaps” resulting from “the worst hangover” of his life. The sentence can be appealed before the Supreme Court.
