A Supreme Court ruling confirmed a 17-year prison term that was imposed in March of the previous year. Antonio MC and Francisco Manuel HH were found guilty of murder by a popular jury in the case involving Daniel Menjíbar, a former participant on the reality show Mujeres y hombres y viceversa. The events, which occurred in July 2020 near an area known for refreshments and nightlife in Valencia, involved two minors who were later sentenced to eight years each.
The Supreme Court rejected all of the grounds raised by the defendants in their objections. In Francisco Manuel’s case, the court noted that his defense had simply voiced broad concerns without providing substantive factual support. In addition to the prison terms, damages were awarded: 50,000 euros to the victim’s parents and 25,000 euros to each of his four siblings.
As established by the Valencian Court and subsequently confirmed by the higher court, the four convicted individuals and a fifth person who has not yet been located confronted the former television participant inside a local bar, and the confrontation escalated into violence. During the sequence leading to the prosecution, the victim reportedly told one of the minors, “If they weren’t together, they wouldn’t be so cool anymore.”
The sequence culminated in Menjíbar being struck in the face, fleeing the scene, and then being pursued by the group. He was overtaken and subjected to repeated blows. At a critical moment, the former participant sustained two stab wounds, one to the back and another to the heart, which produced a severe internal hemorrhage and ultimately caused his death.
Claims denied
In their appeal, Antonio’s defense challenged the weight given to certain testimonies. The Supreme Court found that these testimonies touched on sensitive matters that required careful handling, but the court judged that the appeal had an extraordinary nature and could not be treated as a second opportunity to review the findings already decided by the court of justice.
Concerning the young man’s involvement in the fatal act, the Supreme Court emphasized that the jury had access to direct evidence, including eyewitness testimony with solid foundation and precise detail. The court highlighted the evidentiary elements it considered valid and rejected the objections directed at the manner in which some questions were posed to the jury.
Finally, the court observed that Francisco Manuel’s representation had limited itself to presenting four grounds of appeal, and that none of these grounds showed any real improvement or substantiated basis for reversal. The proceedings therefore sustained the initial conclusions, marking the case as having no ground to overturn the verdicts reached by the lower courts.