Two Former Inmates Turned Fatal in Zaragoza Street Conflict
José Antonio Royo and Fernando Borja first crossed paths during their prison terms for robbery and drug trafficking, spanning 1992 to 1998. After leaving custody, tragedy did not spare either man. Royo killed Borja on Calle del Caballo in Zaragoza in 1999. The confrontation occurred in a district already marked by street prostitution, with a dispute over defending a woman serving as the spark for a crime that shocked the neighborhood.
The fatal encounter happened at dawn on July 24 in the El Gancho district. A street-level conflict escalated when a prostitute, previously abused by the victim, drew the attention of a passerby who heard a disturbance and approached to investigate. The passerby recognized her as a former partner from Torrero prison and stepped in to separate the involved parties.
After intervening, Royo guided the assailant to a lodging on Pignatelli Street. There, the two men consumed tobacco and drove toward a nearby field where cars were parked. What began as a heated exchange ended in deadly violence. The suspect reminded his counterpart that he owed him something for drawings he planned to create for his three children in prison. The children were aged 11, 8, and 5 when their father was killed.
The confrontation intensified when Royo, then 30, drew a 21-centimeter sharp-pointed weapon, later described as an interchangeable dagger or machete in court records. He stabbed the victim in the chest, and the man collapsed, dying at once. The scene remained still as the assailant stood over the body.
The woman who had tended to the victim tried to stem the bleeding, but the damage was fatal. She fled to summon help, leaving behind her handbag and the butterfly knife she carried for protection.
The killer headed toward the nearby Temple Street, then calmly left the scene. Police found him near a bar, rolling marijuana with his hands stained by blood. A tainted scimitar hung at his belt as he faced officers, who detained him after he explained why they stopped him: he had killed the man, and he was glad he had done it, because it removed a threat from the streets. The officers recovered another blade from his possession during a subsequent search of the nightclub area.
The case proceeded to a trial the following year at the Zaragoza Provincial Court, with a jury panel examining the events. Royo claimed to have “gotten into a fight” and, upon seeing what the other man might pull from a pocket, reacted with a similar weapon and struck. The chest wound proved fatal.
Forensic experts characterized the aggressor as right-handed and using sharp weapons. They also noted an antisocial personality diagnosis for Royo, commonly described as a psychopathic personality, though the finding did not settle the matter of intent. The defendant, in turn, maintained a composure that contrasted with the gravity of the charges.
During the trial, a tense moment unfolded when the prosecutor began his address. Handcuffed, Royo rose, kicked a piece of furniture supporting a projector, and threatened the judge. Security quickly removed him from the courtroom as officers intervened.
After proceedings, the parties reached an agreement through counsel, exchanging apologies and condolences. The prosecutor and the family’s attorney pressed for an eighteen-year sentence, arguing that the defendant acted with intent to kill and that there were no objective factors suggesting the victim threatened the defendant.
Some vocal observers argued that Royo acted treacherously due to a calm demeanor paired with a killing impulse, while the defense insisted on unintentional manslaughter or at most a charge of wounding accompanied by murder, contending there was no premeditated intent.
The presiding judge ultimately sentenced Royo to fifteen years in prison. In addition, he was ordered to pay twenty million old pesetas to the deceased’s wife and seven million for each of the three children, though he declared bankruptcy. The judge justified the penalty as proportionate to a case where the offender’s behavior fell outside ordinary social parameters, suggesting a harsher sentence could further deteriorate the personality.
The verdict noted that no extenuating or aggravating factors altered the outcome. It was stated that the act stemmed from hatred toward the victim and involved a 21-centimeter knife used in preparation to cause fatal harm before the victim could defend himself.
This case is often cited in discussions of street violence, prison background, and the dynamics of premeditation versus impulsive violence. It remains a stark reminder of how personal histories intersect with moments of crisis, leaving families to navigate the consequences in court and the aftermath of such a verdict.