The head of the Criminal Court number 5 of Barcelona has acquitted Rosa Peral’s father, convicted alongside Albert López for the ‘crime of the Guàrdia Urbana’, of the crime of false testimony he was accused of for allegedly lying during the trial to try to exculpate his daughter, according to the sentence consulted by Europa Press this Tuesday.
Peral’s father stated during the trial, held between January and March 2020, that it was not true that on May 14, 2017, when the Mossos d’Esquadra went to his home to return the keys to his daughter’s house, he told them that he had lied in his statement on May 9.
Specifically, he denied telling the Mossos that he had seen the victim, Pedro Rodríguez, alive on May 2 and that he had lied at the request of his daughter.
However, both the agent and the Mossos corporal stated during the trial that he had told them that his previous statement was not true, that he had done it because Rosa Peral had asked him to, and that he wanted to tell the truth, to which they replied that he did not need to explain anything else because it could harm her.
For these facts, the Prosecution requested that he be sentenced to one year and four months in prison, as well as a fine of 1,800 euros, for an alleged crime of false testimony.
RETRACTED DURING INSTRUCTION
The sentence states that on May 26, 2017, before the judge of the Court of First Instance and Instruction 8 of Vilanova i la Geltrú (Barcelona), the accused already said that what he had initially told the Mossos was erroneous, clarified that he had not seen Pedro Rodríguez alive on May 2, and said he had told the police this «by mistake.»
It maintains that it is «evident that the accused, being aware of the falsehood, has categorically denied that on May 14, 2017, he told the agents that he wanted to tell the whole truth and that he had previously lied at the request of his daughter,» which constitutes an attack on the normal functioning of the Administration of Justice, because as a witness, he had the obligation to tell the truth.
However, regarding the impact of this falsehood in the process, it indicates that Peral’s father had already explained during the instruction that it was a mistake and that, considering that the statement to the agents only has the value of a «mere complaint,» what he said during the instruction should be taken into account, which was that he did not see Pedro Rodríguez alive on that date.
Also, that what he said to the Mossos «does not have any relevance in determining the innocence or guilt» of Rosa Peral, and that the influence of his statement is so minimal that in the sentence, only 3 lines out of the 43 pages are dedicated to it, without delving into the lie and its scope.
Therefore, the judge considers that Peral’s father’s conduct does not have a «real material effect on the legal interest protected by this crime, which is the administration of justice,» and decides to acquit him.
FONT