Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Valencia (TSJCV) refused to impose reviewable permanent imprisonment To Jorge Palma Jacome, condemned by murders bald marthaArliene Ramos and Lady Marcela Vargas. Thus, it affirms the decision of the Valencian Court, which sentenced the accused to 159 years and 11 months in prison, accused of murdering these women and trying to do the same in sexual relations with six more without their consent, in which he delivered large doses of high-purity cocaine. prison. Offenses committed between June 2018 and November 2019.
The court dismissed appeals on specific charges seeking the detainee’s reversible permanent prison sentence. The magistrate who presided over this case before the Provincial Court by the jury, interpreting Article 140.2 of the Criminal Code, ruled that it was not applicable. requires that other penalties have already been given for crimes against life in one or more different jurisdictions.
After reading the literal content of the statutory provision, the TSJCV Civil and Criminal Division comes to the same conclusion, but in a different way: not from the modal (“to be punished”) in the norm, but from the necessity of a condition. “quantitative quality”. Therefore, Article 140.2 establishes that the accused of murder “who has been convicted of the death of more than two persons” shall be sentenced to permanent imprisonment.
In this case, according to the TSJCV, the crime to which this penalty could be applied was the murder of one-third of the victims, Marta Calvo, and prior to this crime, the accused killed not “more than two”, but exactly two people.
“Basically, and since the phrase used is ‘more than two’ and not ‘two or more’, the legislator seems to direct us to impose aggravated aggravations on at least three life sentences for life sentences, and in our case here the Court is concerned with Arliene and Lady Marcela. those are just two people.
The judges increased the compensation to the parents of one of the victims by 20,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure to recover their daughter’s body.
While acknowledging that the latter is another doctrinal interpretation that allows the inclusion of the latter in these three sentences required by the Penal Code, they turn to the interpretation they apply in accordance with the principle of in dubio pro reo: this most suitable for the prisoner.
Likewise, the Chamber denies that a permanent prison sentence can be applied in this case pursuant to another part of the same article, 140.1.2º, of the Criminal Code, which stipulates that the murder should be committed “after” a sexual crime. the freedom promised to the victim.
Valencia’s Supreme Court comes to this conclusion, as does the Supreme Court, because, based on the proven facts, both crimes were “committed”. unity of action and united in order”.
Likewise, the judges, realizing that Jorge Ignacio PJ had been convicted as “proof of charge, indicative but sufficient”, dismissed the appeal made by the defense. “It was not arbitrary or unreasonable for jurors to consider proven facts. on the basis of these privileged and incidental testimonies, the different expertise and other evidence presented in the case”.
On the other hand, the Civil and Criminal Division upheld the acquittal of Jorge Ignacio PJ of crimes against moral integrity in concealing Marta Calvo’s funeral.
At this point, according to the appeal decision, the reasoning in the jury’s decision was “does not end with confirming the existence of an intentional act”, a confirmed intent to inflict more pain on this young woman’s parents.
Despite this, the Chamber concluded that “it is one thing that the conduct that constitutes the type of Article 173.1 of the Criminal Code was not recorded as accredited, and the concealment of the body caused further suffering to Marta Calvo’s parents.” to what his death already caused”.
Therefore, the Court partially accepts the objection of the prosecution on this issue and increases the joint compensation that the convict has to pay to the parents of this victim for civil liability from 70,000 Euros to 90,000 Euros. TSJCV’s decision can now be appealed on appeal at the Supreme Court.