The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has issued a favorable ruling for Pedro Manuel Sanginés Gutiérrez, concluding that the facts for which he was tried on March 12 do not constitute the alleged crimes. This decision brings an end to a lengthy legal procedure that began in 2009.
The events date back to November 2009, shortly after San Ginés took office as president of the Cabildo de Lanzarote and, consequently, of the public entity EPEL-CACT. At that time, he filed a complaint with the Guardia Civil regarding alleged irregularities in contracts within the entity, initially pointing to its CEO and later to a businessman.
Six months later, the public entity itself joined the lawsuit under the same terms as the complaint. These actions led to judicial proceedings in a court in Arrecife, an investigation that lasted for almost ten years until its definitive archiving in November 2019.
The crime of false denunciation can only be appreciated when there is intent, that is, when it is demonstrated that the accuser knows the falsity of the facts or acts with manifest disregard for the truth.
During the trial, the Prosecutor's Office and the private prosecution, exercised by the family of the deceased businessman, argued that the complaint was a political persecution. However, the senator's defense maintained that he acted in compliance with his legal obligation by reporting to the authorities facts that had been communicated to him and that could constitute a crime.
The Supreme Court, in its resolution, emphasizes that Sanginés merely informed the authorities about suspicions received in the exercise of his institutional office. The ruling also highlights that it was the public entity that formalized the complaint in 2010, with no direct involvement of the senator in its presentation or subsequent extensions, thus dismissing the charge of false testimony.
The high court acknowledges the «understandable distress» suffered by the investigated businessman due to a judicial case that lasted a decade, described by the judges as «an example of what the functioning of the courts should not be.» Nevertheless, it concludes that this situation does not justify a criminal conviction against someone who merely conveyed suspicions of possible administrative irregularities to the Justice system.
