Rocío Martínez Santamaría faced charges in a high-profile case involving the death of Denisa Dragan, a 17-year-old Romanian national. In court, Rocío admitted for the first time to stabbing Denisa with a knife that belonged to her boyfriend, Mario T. He claimed his aim was not to kill but to resolve tensions by maintaining an emotional connection with Rocío while also pursuing his relationship with Denisa.
Denisa Dragan died from a stab wound on the night of November 25, 2018, in the snow outside the home where she lived with her partner. The case notes that, months before the incident, Rocío and Mario had received threats connected to their relationship. The prosecution sought a lengthy sentence, with Mario ultimately receiving twenty years for his role in the murder and Rocío facing a separate conviction for complicity in the crime. Denisa’s family and legal representatives argued for accountability tied to alleged drug use and a personality disorder, though medical and forensic analyses were used to challenge these claims.
Rocío asserted a drug dependency at the time, suggesting a lack of impulse control linked to a borderline condition. She alleged a visit to Valdemingómez earlier on the day of the crime to obtain drugs with Mario. Forensic reports and detention records, however, did not support the claim of ongoing addiction as a factor in the events.
During the proceedings, the family attorney, Marcos García Montes, indicated that the defense would push to reduce Rocío’s potential sentence from twenty-five to twenty years, citing a late confession as a mitigating factor.
As the investigation progressed, the defense described Rocío as having previously confessed to the murder only during a period of acute anxiety in a hospital waiting room. Earlier statements had suggested she bore no direct responsibility, but that extenuating circumstances should be considered for her conduct.
García Montes signaled plans to bolster Mario’s case by arguing for aggravating circumstances tied to the alleged involvement of Mario in guiding Rocío to the scene of the crime. He cited a prior incident in which jealousy culminated in disruptions inside a vehicle after Denisa accepted a friend request from another party on social media.
The concept of ultimate intent, in legal terms, refers to the state of mind in which an individual understands the likely consequences of a given action and proceeds anyway, not excluding the potential harm that may occur.
Denisa’s mother attended the proceedings in black attire, keeping her head covered and her face partly hidden behind dark glasses. She clutched a folded sheet of paper as she listened to the testimonies about the people accused of causing her daughter’s death.
He wanted to break up with her that night.
In his testimony, the defendant claimed that he had been involved with Rocío since June 2018 and had learned that Denisa was involved with both of them. He described himself as obsessed and stubborn. He said Denisa had contacted him on Instagram, and that the situation involved two women in one relationship.
The younger woman described exchanges with Denisa but denied that the messages constituted threats. Asked whether she had ever warned that she might hurt herself, she replied that such threats had never occurred. She also indicated that both Mario and his friends had manipulated the mobile phone history.
On the day of the incident, the pair had reportedly gone to Valdemingómez in the morning with the intention of acquiring cocaine and marijuana. Mario was described as someone who would drive others to neighborhoods with drug activity and accompany them, though he disputed these assertions in court.
Rocío said they had stopped for a meal at a hamburger shop. She recalled seeing Mario speaking with Denisa on her phone, noting that the messages had since been deleted. She asked him to drop her off at the bus stop so she could return to her home city with the intention of ending the relationship.
Rocío claimed that Mario did not wear a particular item of clothing and suggested that he intended to take her to Denisa’s residence to resolve the situation. She stated she did not know the address and that Mario drove her somewhere unfamiliar, where a dark blade was produced. She insisted that she handed the knife to him, not realizing it was in the glove compartment, and that she was startled by the events that followed. She described an intense moment of fear that caused her to flee the scene in a distressed state.
Afterward, Rocío returned to the car and did not speak immediately about what had happened. The couple drove to Aluche and then to San Isidro, eventually reaching the home of Rocío’s relatives. She later suggested that, if she had understood the gravity of the situation, she would have immediately called emergency services.
Mario’s aunt observed his heightened state of anxiety during the unfolding events. The family later learned that Denisa had died around seven in the morning. Rocío’s relatives urged him not to bear the weight of blame alone. Rocío herself reached out to her mother, while a civil guard relative offered to help in the search for him and to assist with the legal process. The family later confirmed the presence of Rocío Martínez Santamaría in the case records.
Rocío described a history of drug-related struggles that had required psychiatric care. She recalled an incident in which financial stress led to aggressive behavior toward her mother, revealing the depth of personal turmoil she faced at the time.
Forensic experts concluded that the stab wound was deep and involved two channels of entry, consistent with a blade designed for stabbing rather than a blunt instrument. The weapon was later found in a container near the crime scene.
He felt Denisa’s death
In his own account, Mario denied possessing a gun in his car’s glove compartment, though he admitted carrying a small knife. He maintained that he did not bring Rocío to Denisa’s home against her will and claimed that Rocío had suggested they leave and head to her own city. He described Denisa as someone who had previously strained relations with him and his ex-wife on social media, noting that he had urged Rocío to curb her behavior to avoid escalating the situation.
Regarding the crime, Mario denied that they had visited Valdemingómez that morning, and he claimed that Rocío had remained at his grandmother’s house during the early hours. He asserted that they later stopped at a drive-through restaurant and that Rocío noticed Denisa receiving a new friend request on social media.
According to Mario, Denisa began to react violently in the car, and he exited the vehicle. He claimed that when normalcy returned, his partner directed him to take Denisa to her home. He asserted that he knew where she lived and denied that Rocío acted under his coercion or influence. He maintained that the door to the building opened and the situation escalated from there to a violent confrontation that led to the tragic stabbing.
Mario recalled a moment when he believed he had been acting in self-defense as the exchange grew more volatile. He described a scene in which the door of the building was assaulted by intense rain and the metallic surface amplified the sounds of the confrontation. He said he later realized that Denisa had been injured and that the events would have to be explained to the authorities for proper resolution.
In his recounting, Mario described a moment when he attempted to contact relatives for support and faced the daunting realization of what had occurred. He mentioned seeking guidance from a family member who is a psychologist and noted that the family coordinated care for Rocío while dealing with the emotional weight of the case. He concluded with a reflection on the deep emotions tied to Denisa’s death and the responsibilities that accompany such a loss.