Supreme Court rejects appeal, former governor’s 10-year sentence in pandemic-fund case becomes final

The Supreme Court rejected former governor Hugo Javier González’s appeal, making his 10-year sentence in the pandemic-fund case final, while his defense announces a new motion to annul the verdict.

Supreme Court rejects appeal, former governor’s 10-year sentence in pandemic-fund case becomes final

The Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice unanimously rejected the extraordinary appeal for annulment filed by the defense of former Central Department governor Hugo Javier González, known as "Número 2." With the decision, made by Justices María Carolina Llanes Ocampos and Alberto Joaquín Martínez Simón and Appellate Judge Silvana Raquel Luraghi Sarubbi, the 10-year prison sentence for aggravated breach of trust became final. The use of fake and cloned invoices was reported as a basis for the conviction at trial.

The case, known as "ghost works," concerns a loss of about G. 5.105 million, according to coverage of the trial. The Court declared the appeals inadmissible, saying they failed to meet the legal requirements for substantiation and deadlines.

In addition to Hugo Javier González, the 10-year prison sentence for Miguel Ángel Robles Ibarra, the former Chief of Staff, also became final; he was also sentenced to 10 years. Four other defendants – Javier Marcelo Rojas Giménez, Luis Eduardo Allende Araújo, Lourdes Verónica Lezcano Decoud, and Modesta Valiente Escobar – had their two-year prison sentences upheld, with execution suspended.

Now, a Criminal Enforcement Court must determine how the sentences will be served. Both González and Robles had previously served pre-trial detention and were on conditional release, awaiting the final and unappealable status of the sentence.

Following the Court's decision, the ex-governor's defense announced a new legal strategy. Lawyer Bernardo Villalba confirmed that he will file an action of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. He argues that the Public Prosecutor's Office itself, through expert reports, proved the non-existence of patrimonial damage, an essential element for the crime of breach of trust, and that four state institutions attested to the physical existence of the works. The defense is seeking the annulment of the sentence and a new oral trial.

Share WhatsApp Facebook LinkedIn

Sources (5)

Updated: