One of the three judges who must issue a new ruling in the Orihuela cleaning contract irregularities case, after the Supreme Court voided the acquittal of 34 defendants, was sanctioned by the General Council of the Judiciary for challenging the impartiality of the Public Prosecutor in the Brugal dossier. This anti-corruption operation, the broadest seen in the province, produced about twenty cases and marked the start of the first trial tied to these matters.
After two years of waiting, the High Court decided to correct the seventh section of the Alicante Appeals Court verdict, sending the file back to the deliberation phase and ordering that the same chamber issue a new resolution, taking into account all the evidence previously deemed invalid and now given due consideration.
<!–[–]
Following a thorough review of a large number of records, the Supreme Court found the wiretaps authorized at the outset of the investigation and the searches deemed null to be valid, ruling that the defendants did not suffer a lack of defense due to those investigative steps.
<!–[–]
Among the 34 defendants, awaiting a new sentence, are the former Popular Mayors of Orihuela, Jose Manuel Medina and Monica Lorente. The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor accuses them of fraud, prevarication, bribery, prohibited dealings by public officials, influence peddling, disclosure of confidential information, electoral crime, criminal organization, coercion, and extortion.
<!–[–]
The High Court detected a lack of logical and rational grounding in some of the sentencing court’s decisions, which led to the exclusion of material proposed by the Public Prosecutor to support its claims, thereby undermining the public prosecution’s right to effective judicial protection and to use relevant evidence.
<!–[–]
Notified earlier this week, the Supreme Court’s ruling supports both the police work and the Prosecutor’s office, whose impartiality had been questioned by Judge Manel Martinez Aroca, the reporting judge for the decision, in an interview with this outlet.
Political aims and the balloon
[–><!–[–]
During statements, the judge referred to the political aims behind the public accusation in Brugal and suggested the balloon was inflated to buy time and uncover whether other offenses existed.
<!–[–]
That position led to a sanction from the judiciary’s governing body: a 500-euro fine and a formal warning for showing disrespect toward fellow members of the Judicial Power through dismissive remarks.
<!–[–]
For the Brugal case, Martinez Aroca organized a hearing room with Judge Gracia Serrano, president of the newly formed XI Section, and colleague Jose Teófilo Jiménez, then and now heading the VII chamber, both based in Elche. The ruling did not include separate votes.
<!–[–]
Since last spring, Martinez Aroca has left the Alicante Appeals Court. He now serves in a criminal court in Murcia, a move that does not excuse him from the obligation to issue a new ruling. The Supreme Court emphasizes that a different tribunal than the one that led the initial verdict is not justified.
<!–[–]
Suspension of his duties could only occur for health reasons (he has been on medical leave for months) or if, based on his statements, a lack of appearance of impartiality and a potential recusation were invoked.
[–>
The path to resolve a potential absence would add another chapter to a case judged five years ago but rooted in events more than two decades old.
Statements from the magistrate
“In Brugal, political aims were pursued and the balloon was inflated to buy time and perhaps uncover if others committed crimes.”
“According to us, nothing was done correctly. Even the prosecutor himself committed relevant acts during the instruction, driven by motivation.”
“As our president Pedro Sanchez said: the Prosecutor’s Office depends on the Government. Rewind to the time of the facts, when the investigation began, and assess the possible political motivation.”
“Do not forget that the Prosecutor’s Office is a hierarchical institution that follows directives.”
“That piece of Brugal came from a court that claimed to have imposed the highest penalty in tax matters, and it was a grievous procedural mess.”