Supreme Court Confirmed 17 years in prison implemented in March last year. Antonio MC and Francisco Manuel HH., who were found guilty of murder by a popular jury Daniel Menjíbar, former contestant of ‘Mujeres y hombres y viceversa’. The incidents, to which both minors, who were sentenced to 8 years in prison, responded, occurred in July 2020. Near an area with torrent bars (Valencia).
The supreme court dismisses all grounds for the convicts’ objections and in Francisco Manuel’s case accuses his defense of limiting himself to expressing these without further ado, they lack any basis. In addition to prison sentences, compensation of 50,000 euros to the young person’s parents and 25 thousand euros to each of his four brothers.
According to the facts proved by the Valencian Court and later confirmed by the high court, the four convicted persons and a fifth person who has not yet been found coincided with the former ‘tronista’ in a local bar and an argument broke out between them. On the way to prosecution, the victim told one of the minors: “If they weren’t together, they wouldn’t be so cool anymore.”
At that time, Menjibar was punched in the face and he fled while being taken away. chased by the group this caught him and he kept hitting him. At one point, the former contestant took two stab wounds, one in the back and one in the heart caused a massive hemorrhage that caused his death.
Claims denied
In his appeal, Antonio’s defense questioned the value placed on certain testimonies that, according to the Supreme Court, “posed the challenge of following the paths of a religion.” the reason for the error in the evaluation of the test“. At this point the supreme court held that the appeal was of an extraordinary nature and cannot focus as if it were a double second sample to add to that of the supreme court of justice.
Regarding this young man’s participation in the act of death, the Supreme Court recalls: the jury had the opportunity to have direct evidence, with the testimony of an eyewitness solid foundation and meticulous detail“The elements of evidence that the court values. It also denies the charges made by this party regarding the tone of certain questions put by the judge to the jury.
Finally, he points out that Francisco’s representation was limited to stating four grounds of appeal “without the slightest improvement in any of them”, which were clearly baseless.
Source: Informacion
James Sean is a writer for “Social Bites”. He covers a wide range of topics, bringing the latest news and developments to his readers. With a keen sense of what’s important and a passion for writing, James delivers unique and insightful articles that keep his readers informed and engaged.