Chamber II of the Supreme Court has condemned the deputy of United We Can Alberto Rodríguez Rodríguez as author of a crime of attack on agents of the authority, with the highly qualified mitigation of undue delay, to a penalty of 1 month and 15 days in prison, with the accessory of special disqualification for the right of passive suffrage during the time of the sentence. The prison sentence is replaced by the penalty of a fine of 90 days with a daily fee of 6 euros (in total, 540 euros).
Rodríguez is acquitted of a minor offense of injuries, as a result of the decriminalization of misdemeanors in 2015, although he will have to pay 50 euros as compensation for civil liability to the agent of the National Police Corps to whom, according to proven facts, kicked at a demonstration in 2014 in La Laguna (Tenerife). The ruling adds that the sentence be notified to the Central Electoral Board for the appropriate purposes.
The ruling considers it proven that on January 25, 2014, in the town of La Laguna, on the occasion of the reopening of the cathedral, various events were organized that the then Minister of Education and Culture, José Ignacio Wert, was scheduled to attend. . The Police organized a device in the vicinity when they learned that a demonstration had been called under the slogan “Rejection of the LOMCE.”
The account of events adds that, around 11.00 in the morning, after the braided fence placed as protection in the vicinity of the cathedral, protected by police officers, a group of about 500 people gathered who “began to utter shouts and insults against the agents and against the aforementioned Minister ”.
“At a certain moment, the congregants began to attack the fence, throwing the fences against the agents, as well as various objects such as stones, water bottles and others,” says the sentence, which indicates that this “led to a police unit that was prepared as a reaction, to stand between the fence and the congregation, trying to maintain the line of protection, and assisting the agents who proceeded to arrest those whom they had seen develop a more aggressive attitude ”.
Kick in the knee to an agent
The account adds that “in the course of the physical confrontations that, as a result of the violent attitude of some of those gathered, took place between them and police agents, the accused Alberto Rodríguez Rodríguez (…) who at that time was among the First, he kicked the officer of the CN of Police No. 92.025 in the knee, who, duly uniformed, was fulfilling the functions of his position as a member of the aforementioned police unit, who, as a result of that, suffered a concussion of the one that cured in a day without impediment for his habitual activities ”.
The Supreme Court argues that, in order to determine the assault on the agent and its authorship, the evidence it has taken into account is, fundamentally, the statement of the affected police officer, who “in his statements did not express any doubt that the accused was who voluntarily kicked him in his left knee during the incidents that took place ”.
It adds that “such statement is corroborated by the fact that he went immediately after the events to receive medical assistance and by the early police identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the events. The credibility of the witness is also supported by the persistence in the version maintained from the beginning and by the absence of any kind of animosity against the accused ”.
As to the manifestation of the accused that he attributed the officer’s statements to what he considers to be a common practice of the police consisting of falsely affirming that a person, who has been characterized by his activity in other demonstrations, is present in the one on which they report and has developed violent attitudes. , the sentence indicates that it is not supported by any evidence, and recalls that the agent stated that he knew the defendant from other previous demonstrations in which he had maintained a normal behavior. “So that, at the date of the events, in the opinion of the witness, the accused was not a significant person because of his especially active or violent attitude in the demonstrations; and, furthermore, then it lacked political relevance ”, say the magistrates.
Regarding what the defendant also argued that the accusation filed in this case sought to question the exercise of the right to assembly and demonstration, the Chamber does not share the argument either and emphasizes that “numerous people made use of that right on that occasion and only Those accused of violent acts were arrested. Violence is not inherent in the exercise of the rights of assembly and demonstration. The accusation sustained in this case has nothing to do with the exercise of these fundamental rights, but rather with the use of violence, in the course of its exercise, against the agents of the authority who are in the performance of their functions ”.
The judgment considers that in this case all the elements required by the criminal type of attack on agents of the authority concur. “There is no doubt that the injured agent was in uniform and in the exercise of the functions of his position. Nor has it been questioned that the defendant was adequately aware of this circumstance, on the other hand, evident. Nor have any other reasons been alleged for the attack other than those related to the performance of public functions that corresponded to the police officer at that time. As for typical behavior, the act of giving him a kick in the knee constitutes not only an act of assault, but a clear aggression, which meets the demands of the target type ”. The magistrates recall that, according to their jurisprudence, this crime is consummated with the attack or assault even if the taxpayer is not hit or materially attacked.
And regarding the subjective type, for the court “there are no doubts that the defendant not only knew that the agent was in the exercise of his duties, but also that kicking him in the knee constitutes an act of aggression.”
Regarding the individualization of the sentence, the sentence explains that the Prosecutor’s Office proposed to reduce it by one degree by applying the mitigation of undue delay as highly qualified. The Supreme Court, however, considers that the result of the application of this mitigating factor should be a greater reduction of the sentence, by two degrees, as the extension of the total duration of the case is not justified – 7 years from the occurrence of the charges. facts – lacking any complexity.
Particular vote in favor of acquittal
The sentence includes a dissenting opinion of the judges Susana Polo and Leopoldo Puente, 2 of the 7 who have formed the court, in which they argue that the sentence should have been acquittal, since the evidence practiced in the trial is “very far” to be sufficient to enervate the right to the presumption of innocence.
The two dissenting magistrates indicate that the conviction is supported as the only evidence in the testimony given by the attacked police officer, who identified his aggressor in the trial, but did not explain to the court about the circumstances in which it occurred. “This extreme parsimony of the story is, in our opinion, very relevant, insofar as the reliability in the identification of the aggressor can be badly assessed, when we do not even know if the agent had some time to notice his appearance (at see him, for example, arrive head-on) or if the events occurred suddenly and in inadequate conditions for such recognition ”.
They assert that in this case it is a matter of determining whether it can be considered proven that Alberto Rodríguez was the person who kicked said agent in the left knee. “This is what the agent affirms. And the accused denies it. It is possible that it happened. We are not in a position to rule it out. But there are also multiple other possibilities, equally or similarly probable. It is plausible, for example, that the agent could have mistaken the identification. We do not know the exact form, we have already said, in which the aggression could have occurred ”, the magistrates underline in their vote.
