The case centers on a man known in the region as the King of Cachopo who sought protection after a 15 year sentence previously handed down by the Supreme Court in December for a homicide tied to the disappearance and dismemberment of a former partner in 2018. The matter has drawn intense scrutiny from the constitutional court and legal observers as it unfolds across multiple layers of the justice system in Spain.
In appeals filed by the defendant, the defense asserts that fundamental rights were violated during the judicial process. The defense team, led by lawyer Ana Isabel Peña, contends that these alleged violations might be sufficient grounds to declare the trial process null and void. The argument rests on claims that procedural errors compromised the fairness of the proceedings and the ability to mount an effective defense. These contentions have intensified debates about due process and the standards of evidence in high stakes criminal cases.
One of the main points raised in the appeal concerns what the defense describes as a duplication in the flow of the trial materials and the overall evidentiary process. The defense characterizes this as a public mockery that allows for inconsistent witness statements to be balanced in ways that could distort the factual narrative. The claim suggests that the procedures did not maintain a coherent and reliable sequence of testimony and documentation, thereby undermining the integrity of the verdict. This assertion has become a focal point in the broader discussion about trial fairness and the potential impact on outcomes in serious crime cases.
Additionally, the defense published a scientific report from the National Police detailing DNA evidence related to the victim. The report questions the reliability of the evidence presented in the original investigations, arguing that the authorities lacked the necessary accreditation and resources to perform the crucial comparisons that led to the identification of the victim. The document raises concerns about the steps taken in forensic analysis and the sufficiency of procedural safeguards to ensure the accuracy of the DNA conclusions.
The victim was declared to have been dismembered, and the alleged acts occurred within a shared residence, where the accused and the victim previously lived together after meeting in April of the same year. The timeline indicates that in June the victim expressed doubts about the continuity of the relationship and departed, leaving a note indicating her intention to leave the shared home. In the following early hours, the accused allegedly visited the home and interactions afterward culminated in the severing of contact and the disappearance of the victim in the period surrounding the incident. The body was never recovered in its entirety, complicating the evidentiary landscape for investigators and prosecutors alike.
Authorities moved promptly, and the accused was apprehended in November in Zaragoza. In the subsequent December ruling, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal brought by the defendant against a prior decision from the Madrid High Court of Justice and the Associated Provincial Court. The court confirmed the charges of homicide, recognizing aggravating factors such as kinship and the victim’s sex. The judgment upheld a substantial prison sentence alongside other penalties, reinforcing the gravity of the crime as evaluated within the judicial framework. The decision also confirmed additional sanctions connected to the case, underscoring the long term consequences faced by the defendant.
Beyond imprisonment, the court ordered a lengthy period of probation and monetary compensation. Specifically, the sentence included a period of probation equal in length to the time served, as well as compensation payments intended to support the victim’s family. The total financial reparations accounted for sums designated to the victim’s children and to the victim’s mother, reflecting the court’s attempt to address the broad impact of the crime on the family and community. The legal process continues to unfold as arguments regarding fairness, forensic methods, and the interpretation of testimony remain central to the ongoing proceedings. The case remains a touchstone for discussions about the interplay between criminal responsibility, procedural rights, and the administration of justice in complex homicide investigations as observed by legal scholars and practitioners involved in the case. [Court records]