In a landmark ruling, the High Court of the Commonwealth of Valencia confirmed the conviction of Jorge Ignacio Palma for multiple murders, including Marta Calvo, Arliene Ramos, and Lady Marcela Vargas. Once again, Palma escaped permanent imprisonment being reviewable, leaving all parties with a mix of relief and continued concern. The defense noted that the verdict meticulously reflects every fact established by the jury, while the prosecution pressed for harsher sentencing. Palma faces prison terms totaling up to nearly 160 years for a triple homicide, with additional charges detailing six separate sexual assaults against women, carried out with a sustained level of cocaine use. The case also implicates crimes against sexual freedom and public health, intensifying the gravity of the charges.
Despite these findings, there is disagreement with TSJCV’s assessment. The defendants and some participants have signaled an intent to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court, seeking to review whether the maximum sentence provided by the Criminal Code should apply for permanent imprisonment in a case like this.
Under Article 140 of the Criminal Code, the law prescribes severe punishment for murder in cases where the suspect is responsible for the deaths of three or more individuals. In this situation, given the stipulated charges, Palma could be prosecuted for the third death of Marta Calvo in light of the earlier killings of Arliene and Lady Marcela, if the judgment supports that interpretation.
As the case unfolds, the family representatives—Through the legal team of Juan Carlos Navarro—have sought to frame Marta Calvo’s death within the broader pattern alleged in the hearings. The families of Arliene and Lady Marcela, alongside six other survivors, argue that Marta Calvo is the third act in a series of violent offenses. In Palma’s initial appeal to the TSJCV, distinctions were drawn between multiple murders and serial killings, a nuance the Supreme Court has previously weighed in on. The court’s stance appears to rest on the legislative intent behind potential reviewable sentences rather than a mere semantic tense issue.
The TSJCV’s Law and Criminal Division, however, contends that the debate is not about verb tense but whether the charge reflects a quantitative sequence of three deaths. They emphasize that the case references more than two deaths, specifically three prior murders before Marta Calvo’s death, whose body has not yet been discovered. This interpretation aims to anchor the verdict in a broader pattern of crime rather than a single episode.
Additionally, the Valencia County Court has reaffirmed its stance, cautioning that the three murders were pursued in a joint trial as a product of irregular aggregation requested by the parties. The decision underscores concerns about the consistency of criteria used to consolidate the offenses and the implications for sentencing, particularly in the context of a serial pattern vs. isolated incidents.
Pilar Jové, the attorney representing Marta Calvo’s mother, also indicated plans to appeal. In her assessment, the jurors found sufficient evidence of harm to the family to justify a grave response, even as the body’s location remains unresolved. The trial record references the discovery efforts at the Dos Aguas landfill, where investigators searched without results after the dismemberment narrative emerged. The ongoing search and the evidence presented at trial highlight the emotional toll on the families and the difficulty of reconciling justice with closure. (Attribution: Court records and statements summarized for the legal brief.)