The Supreme Court (TS) has made public an order in which it agrees to review the sentence in accordance with which a resident of Arona (Tenerife) has been convicted of falsification of an official document, since, the high court alleges, Documents have been found that would prove his innocence.
The sentence to which he was sentenced is not stipulated in the order, and to review the trial the Supreme Court also points out that he is a foreigner who does not understand Spanish well and suffers from an 80% disability.
The man was charged with driving with a false license plate, but his lawyers allege that he was not in a position to accept his guilt, and several pieces of evidence are provided that would prove the veracity of the story offered when he was arrested while driving a vehicle under his name. from the previous owner.
The documents are the car’s license plate, which matches the current one, and the chassis number, which would prove that he did not manipulate the data in any way and that therefore he is not guilty of document falsification, as was attributed to him and convicted. accordance.
The Supreme Court indicates that the reviews of sentences are exceptional in nature with well-marked limits, and the requirement that the new facts or evidence clearly evidence the innocence of the accused, so that there is no doubt of his non-participation in the facts. prosecuted.
The evidence must unequivocally prove that an error has been made throughout the judicial process, in order to then annul the sentence that is wrong.
In this case, the Supreme Court accepts that the document could not be presented given the short period of time in which the procedure was processed, and believes it possible that it would clearly prove the veracity of the version offered.
This would be that the car had been purchased abroad and that it was sent with the same license plate that it had when the police intervention was carried out, which would rule out the crime of document falsification for which he was convicted.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office also sided with the defendant and the Supreme Court authorized him to present an appeal for review, for which he was given fifteen days from the last notification of the ruling, along with the new original documents duly translated.
It so happens that the order of the Supreme Court contained an error in its operative part when indicating that the Court of origin was in Ceuta, when it should really have said that it corresponded to Arona, for which the defense had to request clarification.
