The Supreme Court (TS) has sentenced a Tenerife businessman to one year in prison and to pay 3,000 euros in compensation to a worker whom he fired and whose signature he forged on several documents, for which he is accused of the crime of procedural fraud.
The National Police, condemned for not having protected an agent who suffered workplace harassment in Fuerteventura
Further
The employee was hired in a restaurant in Santa Cruz de Tenerife and in July 2019 the company informed her of her disciplinary dismissal. She did not agree and reported him in the social sphere.
During the hearing, the accused “with the aim of deceiving the court and obtaining a ruling favorable to his economic interests” according to the Supreme Court, presented two documents prepared by him in which he imitated the woman’s signature.
In them, the former worker claimed to have received the amount of her payroll corresponding to the month of May and enjoyed the vacation days that corresponded to her, when this was not true.
Given these circumstances, the Social Court decided to resort to criminal proceedings and the case went through the Provincial Court, Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) and finally reached the Supreme Court, where the worker has invariably been found right. and the original sentence is considered “correct.”
On the contrary, the businessman described the arguments of the ruling as “absurd, incoherent and illogical” as they were based solely on a handwriting test, the results of which he disagrees with.
He maintained that the expert herself during the trial recognized that many of the signatures made by the accused showed tremors, dissociations and even changes in movement and that therefore the result was “irregular.”
The accused said that the expert report was done “incorrectly” given that when he was summoned to carry out the deed, he was asked to imitate the signature that was on the payroll and for whose falsification he was convicted.
The calligraphy specialist, however, maintains that it was perfectly possible to detect the characteristics of her writing, because some features are automatic and unconscious and cannot be mastered by the writer, including the beginning of the stroke.
The courts ratified the results of the test whose conclusion is that the signature does not correspond to that of the worker.
The TS concludes that the falsification of the signature could only benefit the businessman and therefore considers the previous judicial rulings that condemned him to be correct and rejects the businessman’s arguments, given that according to jurisprudence, both the person who makes the false signature and the person who commits it is responsible. take advantage of the action.
