The judgment highlights that “regardless of the possible administrative illegality of this decision and the actions or sanctions that may correspond in another order, in addition to the circumstances that have concurred in the file, in the technical-legal approach It must be excluded that the conduct of both defendants has responded to an act of intenta, regarding the existence of a will or intention that deviates from the fulfillment of its function and not even prior knowledge of the unjust consequences of its actions. All this taking into account that the mistake, the unintentional error, the negligence or carelessness, even serious, do not allow to configure the crime of administrative prevarication, which has not provided for its classification as a reckless crime ”.
Furthermore, it emphasizes that “even though it is unquestionable that an irregular situation has arisen in the administrative action described, the conduct of the accused cannot be classified as prevaricating, with the required requirements, very particularly with reference to the appreciation of the subjective type of the crime. Venal action is not appreciated, in terms that are indicative of a biased will, far from the purposes of the function that corresponds to them.
Regarding the wall, which the prosecution qualifies as a centennial wall, the court understands that “the report presented by the architect Puelles, who was also the drafter of the General Planning Plan of the municipality, rejects this assertion. In his report he fixes the age of the wall in the second half of the 20th century, rejects any artistic or historical value, regardless of the importance that this construction could have from the ethnological point of view, as a constructive representation of the traditional agricultural activity ». The sentence rejects the possible commission of a crime against the historical heritage because it is understood that nothing proves that this eliminated construction “was the object of a specific and individualized protection due to its historical nature.”
Nor has it been proven “the existence of any hidden motivation or interests at the origin of this administrative action ». And he adds that “the fact that the authorization and assignment of the owners of the area that a road was to occupy was obtained does not allow to presume that it was due to some distorted intention, beyond, in the case of municipal representatives, of respond to a situation “that they considered necessary to improve traffic management and to deal with reports that” warned of the risk generated by falling stones. ”
