Cesar Román, widely known as the King of Cachopo, has declared his intent to file an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court. This move comes after the Court of Cassation confirmed his 15-year prison sentence for the murder of his partner, a verdict that has now become final. The case remains one of the most closely watched in recent Spanish criminal history, drawing attention to how evidence and legal procedures are handled in high-profile murder trials. The case against Román centers on the death of Heidy Paz, whose mutilated remains were discovered in an industrial warehouse on August 13, 2018. The details of the investigation have been discussed extensively in court documents and reporting, underscoring the gravity of the charges and the ensuing legal process.
Public records indicate that Section 26 of the Madrid County Court requested access to financial information held by banks to assess potential liabilities tied to Román’s economic circumstances. This request illustrates how prosecutors and defense teams often explore financial dimensions to determine possible restitution, probation terms, and the overall economic impact of the sentence. In Román’s case, the sentence comprises 15 years in prison, plus 15 years of probation and a compensation award of €142,229 allotted for the children of the deceased. These components reflect the court’s efforts to address both punitive and compensatory aspects of the verdict.
Román has also requested that the final judgment issued by the Court of Cassation in December be communicated to the penitentiary center where he is currently serving his sentence. This procedural step is part of ensuring that the sentence is properly executed and that all relevant authorities are informed in a timely manner. The legal team has indicated that certain procedural classifications and steps can be initiated and carried out in accordance with applicable law as part of the amparo process.
There is a broader statement accompanying these requests, with Román noting that the actions are being taken at the direction of the defense. Whether an amparo appeal will be brought before the Constitutional Court remains a point of contention, as the defense weighs its options against the Supreme Court’s recent rulings. The legal questions at stake include the interpretation of evidence, due process, and the application of constitutional protections in high-profile criminal cases.
In December, the Supreme Court judges rejected Román’s appeal. The court had considered objections raised by his legal team regarding a mitochondrial DNA analysis conducted in July 2019. The analysis concluded that the genetic profile obtained from the remains belonged to Heidy Paz, the victim. The judges stated that the protocols used in the genetic testing were accredited and that the sample included a mixture of genetic material from at least two profiles taken from the swab obtained from the upper middle section of the rear skirting board of the defendant’s master bedroom. The ruling emphasized that the genetic profile matched the victim from the samples collected and that the defendant’s own genetic material was also present in the evidence.
The decision further noted that the presence of a trunk’s DNA profile, any lack of evidence, or traces found on three different parts of a suitcase, as well as the DNA profile from a caustic soda bottle, did not undermine the overall interpretation. It was highlighted that the defendant’s fingerprint had been found on one of the bottles, reinforcing the evidentiary chain linking Román to the scene. These technical details illustrate how forensic science was applied in establishing probable connections between the suspect and the crime.
On the civil side of the case, the family’s attorney, Alexis Partners, plans to submit two letters on the upcoming Friday. These letters reiterate a request for the repatriation and burial of Heidy Paz in her native Honduras and seek updated information on César Román’s confinement status. This legal maneuver reflects the sensitive nature of post-trial issues, including the handling of the victim’s remains and the rights of the family to closure.
Outside the courtroom, observers continue to scrutinize the interplay between criminal verdicts, amparo avenues, and the long-term implications for victims’ families. The case remains a focal point for discussions about how judicial systems handle complex evidence, the rights of defendants under constitutional protections, and the responsibilities of state institutions to ensure transparent, timely communication about sentencing and imprisonment. The discourse around this matter also highlights how international elements, such as family requests for repatriation, intersect with national legal processes in Spain.