A registered nurse in a geriatric facility faced a one-year prison sentence after being found guilty on multiple counts related to mistreatment of elderly residents under his supervision. The ruling came from a Criminal Court, which weighed the evidence and concluded that four of the five charged allegations were substantiated. The record relies on anonymous audio captures contributed during the investigation, including disturbing accounts of how residents of the Sant Joan neighborhood were treated. At the time of the hearing, the defendant was employed at Sant Joan Hospital, not at the retirement home where the incidents occurred.
The verdict is not yet final and may be appealed. It states that, in 2015, the defendant directed a string of demeaning phrases at four elderly women in his care, such as, “You smell like a goat,” “dirty, dirty, old, crazy, annoying, go to hell,” or “what a slutty and slutty auntie.” He reportedly mixed a bottle of cologne with another while assisting a resident and warned, “be careful or I will kill you, be careful with me.”
Four counts of moral integrity offenses were levied, with three months’ imprisonment for each. The judge accepted certain mitigating factors related to delays in legal proceedings and considered the case had faced lengthy procedural paralysis in the Criminal Court before a trial date could be set. The central evidence cited by the judge was an anonymous recording that had been sent to one family member involved in the case. Defenses challenged the admissibility of these recordings, arguing they were obtained illegally; however, the court noted that most victims had already passed away when the trial occurred, making those recordings a primary evidentiary source. In the absence of recordings in one instance, the defendant was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Between 2012 and 2014, the distress described included basins of cold water poured on a resident at night to intimidate and quiet her, with occasional blows claimed but not fully established at trial.
The prosecution and the defense, led by Special Counsel Elena Martinez, engaged in a legal debate over the records’ validity and their alignment with jurisprudence that courts have followed. The Supreme Court recognized the possibility of such challenges. The judge concluded that, although arrests may have occurred without explicit consent and without established legal authority, the constitutional rights asserted by the defense were not violated. The use of a hidden camera was discussed as part of this analysis.
valid test
The decision describes the recordings as created by the defendant while performing duties at the residence facilities, asserting that the captures occurred in areas not strictly restricted by privacy policies. The judge determined that the recordings were made with a clear purpose: to verify the treatment of residents and protect their physical or mental well-being during the course of normal work activities. The court did not find evidence of improper record-keeping or illegal prescriptions related to the footage.
The content of the recordings showed that the defendant’s actions amounted to degrading treatment of residents, with behavior that was cruel and degrading beyond what could be dismissed as harsh language. This behavior, the court concluded, severely compromised the dignity of four residents who were very old and dependent on care. Other charges, including threats, coercion, and additional forms of abuse, did not result in further convictions beyond the four found proven.
The defendant held the role of principal operator and legal representative of the nursing home, represented by attorney Ignacio Gally. The court declined to award compensation to the victims’ families as part of the sentence.
Objection to Hearing
Attorney Joachim de Lacy, who represented the nurse at the hearing, told this newspaper that an appeal would be filed in the Provincial Court. De Lacy argued that the judge allowed the consideration of illegal evidence and suggested the ruling did not fully address the special prosecutor’s concerns.