In the Supreme Court of the Valencian Community, the TSJCV declined to impose a reviewable permanent imprisonment sentence in the case of Jorge Palma Jacome, who was condemned for the murders of Marta Calvo, Arliene Ramos, and Lady Marcela Vargas. The court affirmed the Valencian Court’s verdict, which sentenced the defendant to 159 years and 11 months in prison for the killings and for attempting to exploit sexual relations with six additional victims without consent, during which large quantities of high-purity cocaine were allegedly distributed. The offenses occurred between June 2018 and November 2019.
The court rejected appeals on specific charges seeking the detainee’s reversible permanent prison sentence. The magistrate presiding over the case at the Provincial Court, after a jury review and interpreting Article 140.2 of the Criminal Code, ruled that a certain condition was not satisfied, namely that other penalties had already been imposed for crimes against life in one or more different jurisdictions.
Reading the statutory text directly, the TSJCV Civil and Criminal Division reached the same conclusion via a different path. It considered not the modal expression in the norm but the requirement of a fixed quantitative threshold. Article 140.2 thus states that a murder conviction carries a permanent imprisonment sentence for an offender who has been convicted of the deaths of more than two persons.
In this case, according to the TSJCV, the crime that could trigger this penalty involved Marta Calvo as one of the victims and, prior to this crime, the defendant had killed exactly two people rather than more than two.
Hence, given that the phrase refers to
“more than two” rather than “two or more”, the legislator appears to intend that aggravated life penalties apply only when at least three life sentences are involved. Here, the court notes that Arliene Ramos and Lady Marcela Vargas are the two victims under discussion.
The judges increased the compensation to the parents of one victim by 20,000 euros for non-pecuniary damages caused by the failure to recover their daughter’s body.
While recognizing that this interpretation opens a doctrinal path that could justify including the latter in the three sentences required by the Penal Code, the court nevertheless adheres to the principle of in dubio pro reo. This principle serves as a guard for the prisoner while weighing uncertainties in the evidence.
The Chamber also concluded that a permanent prison sentence should not be applied under another part of Article 140.1.2º, which links the murder to the prior sexual crime and the described loss of freedom promised to the victim.
Valencia’s Supreme Court arrives at a similar determination, underscoring that, based on the proven facts, both crimes were committed in a unified and coordinated manner intended to execute a single plan.
Moreover, the judges observed that Jorge Ignacio PJ had been convicted as part of the prosecution, a factor considered sufficient for the jury to deem the facts proven. They asserted that it was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable for jurors to rely on the presented evidence, including testimonies, expert analyses, and other materials introduced during the trial, to establish the facts.
On another point, the Civil and Criminal Division upheld the acquittal of Jorge Ignacio PJ on charges of crimes against moral integrity connected to the concealment of Marta Calvo’s funeral.
The appellate decision noted that the jury’s reasoning did not hinge on a confirmed intent to inflict additional harm but also stated that the conduct described in Article 173.1 of the Criminal Code had not been demonstrated in a way that could be considered proven beyond reasonable doubt. The concealment of the body was seen as a factor contributing to the distress of Marta Calvo’s parents in light of the tragedy already suffered.
Consequently, the court partially accepted the prosecution’s objection on this point and increased the joint compensation payable by the convict to the victim’s parents from 70,000 to 90,000 euros as part of civil liability. The TSJCV’s ruling remains subject to possible appeal before the Supreme Court.