Investigation into Icod de los Vinos Mayor Continues
Judge Alejandro Andrés Martín Molina, head of Section Two of the Instruction Court at Icod de los Vinos, has decided to keep the criminal proceedings against the local mayor, Javier Sierra Jorge, from Alternativa Icodense (Aicod), open due to an alleged continuous crime of malfeasance by omission. The judge has also expanded the account of the reported events by accepting the appeal filed by the lawyer representing the complainant public official.
Meanwhile, the defence’s appeal against the judicial order of 8 April, which identified signs of a crime, was rejected.
Plea for Heavy Sanction
For these events, the attorney for the particular accusation representing the complainant is seeking a penalty of 15 years of special disqualification from holding public office for Mayor Sierra Jorge.
Details Surrounding the Proceedings
The rulings issued by the judge on 1 June in the two orders solidify the summary procedure and place the repeated actions of the mayor at the centre of the investigation. He allegedly halted several requests for the processing of disciplinary files against another public employee with whom Sierra admitted to having a “friendship relationship”.
The chronology now included in the proceedings begins on 2 March 2023. On that day, the complainant submitted an initial request to open a disciplinary file against a public official. The request was reiterated on 30 August of the same year, at which time she also submitted a second request to open a file against the same public employee.
On 13 October, the complainant registered another document stating that “the previously submitted disciplinary requests had not been addressed by Javier Sierra”. Five days later, on 18 October, she filed another request to know the identity of the person responsible for instructing one of the procedures. According to the account ordered to be included by the judge, “she also received no answer to this last request”.
Expanded Account of Events
These facts had not been detailed to this extent in the order that transformed the case into a summary procedure. The complainant appealed that resolution, not to oppose the progression of the case but to ensure that the court accurately reflected the sequence of requests, reiterations, and claims that support her complaint.
The judge accepted her appeal and found that her allegations justified the expansion of the account and ordered the incorporation of the actions recorded from March to October 2023. “The decision does not alter the continuation of the procedure, already agreed upon in April, but completes the factual basis on which the case must develop.”
Significance of the Chronology
The penal relevance of this chronology lies in the fact that “the investigation does not focus on an explicit resolution that could be deemed arbitrary but on a possible deliberate failure to act in response to requests that required processing, advancement, or response”. Therefore, Sierra’s conduct falls within the scope of malfeasance by omission.
Judicial Rejection of Defence’s Claims
The mayor also appealed the order of 8 April. He argued that “the instructor incorrectly assessed the actions taken and that neither the documentation nor the witness statements allowed for any indications of crime by malfeasance” and added that “the order merely reiterated the content of the complaint” without properly weighing the elements that contradicted the responsibility attributed to Sierra.
The appeal denied the existence of a negligent action but argued that if it had occurred, it would lack criminal relevance and should remain within the administrative realm. The defence sought for the court to revoke the continuation of the summary procedure and archive the case.
The judge rejected this and reminded that “the instruction phase is not intended to declare the guilt or innocence of the accused but to determine whether there are sufficient rational indications for the procedure to advance”. He stated that the defence’s arguments “do not allow for the dismissal, at this procedural moment, of the possible existence of a relevant criminal omission”. The judge also added that “the investigation must clarify whether Sierra had a specific obligation to process, advance, or respond to the submitted requests, and if so, what reasons explain the failure of these actions to occur or be communicated.”
Supreme Court Doctrine
The ruling rejecting the appeal is based on Supreme Court doctrine regarding cases in which the inactivity of an authority or official may be equated to an arbitrary decision. Malfeasance by omission may be recognised when there is a clear legal duty to act and the authority consciously fails to do so, leading to a situation where their passivity produces a result contrary to the legal framework. The order of 8 April also introduced an essential caveat: “Not every lack of response, delay, or administrative deficiency constitutes a crime.”
The defence of the mayor of Icod has already filed an appeal against the rejection order of 1 June.
It will be up to the body responsible for any potential prosecution to determine, based on the evidence, whether there was a conscious and deliberate omission or if the events merely represent an irregular administrative function without criminal consequences. For now, the court believes there are sufficient indications for the case to continue.
The case proceeds with the expanded account requested by the complainant.
