The Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Madrid has censured the way in which the now former judge of the 'Begoña Gómez case', Juan Carlos Peinado, retired last weekend, handled some procedures of the case, considering that he acted with a "precipitation and speed" that is "unusual in known practices" and reminding that "it is neither desirable nor acceptable to override professionals."
In a document accessed by Europa Press, the prosecutor of the procedure, José Manuel San Baldomero, supports, despite those criticisms, Peinado's decision to reject the appeal from the defense of the advisor to the wife of the President of the Government in Moncloa, Cristina Álvarez. This defense had challenged the summons for the preliminary hearing of the future trial, set with only one day's notice, which they intended to attend but could not as they were traveling outside Spain.
San Baldomero agrees with the defense's thesis by emphasizing that the investigated person's departure abroad "in no way constitutes a breach nor does it mean placing oneself outside the court's disposition." Nevertheless, he understands that this is not enough to annul the diligence.
The representative of the Public Ministry emphasizes that "it is also not usual, habitual, or normal in known practices this precipitation and speed in the scheduling of certain procedures (and even times), leaving the parties and professionals in certainly strange situations, also forcing intense and fortunate trips, which however did not prevent the delay in holding the appearance."
Nonetheless, the prosecutor stresses that the personal attendance of an investigated person is not mandatory for the preliminary hearing, held on September 8 at six in the afternoon, and that both Gómez's defense and Álvarez's had requested a postponement.
"Beyond the fact that the instructor may have overstepped and shown again little sensitivity to the rest of the participants, the violation of the norm, it is known, does not entail its nullity if it does not cause a real and effective defenselessness," adds the document.
The Prosecutor's Office rejects the advisor's challenge
Under the heading of EXPECTATIONS OF "LOGICAL AND PREDICTABLE" SUMMONS, the prosecutor explains that this reasoning leads him to report "unfavorably regarding the challenge" made by Álvarez, since "the eventual violation of the norm is not accompanied by the exposure of a transcendent defenselessness."
In his opinion, "it is true that the investigated could have been present and should have been summoned for that purpose, in order to be able to attend," but he recalls that the procedural regulations provide that the judge sets the nearest possible date for the preliminary hearing on the appropriateness of opening an oral trial, unless there are pending investigative proceedings requested by the defense and admitted by the instructor.
"The indicated speed is not usual. It is neither desirable nor acceptable to overlook the professionals. There is no breach or excess in the actions of the investigated," insists the prosecutor, differentiating between the way the judge acts and the procedural conduct of Álvarez.
He clarifies, however, that the need to hold the hearing as soon as possible and the option to postpone it until September 28 —the date on which the advisor had communicated her return— "is not easy to reconcile, especially when the expectations and procedural forecasts for scheduling in September were logical and predictable, or at least not irrational or surprising."
Just a few days before his retirement at the age of 72, the maximum age to remain active in the judicial career, Peinado agreed to send to trial with a popular jury the wife of Pedro Sánchez and his advisor for alleged crimes of embezzlement and influence peddling.
In this case, the popular accusation exercised by Hazte Oír requests sentences of 13 and 6 years in prison for Gómez and Álvarez, respectively, while the Prosecutor's Office and the defenses request their acquittal, understanding that the facts do not constitute a crime.