Rosario Robles filed a second appeal with a court requesting the magistrate to «revoke» his pre-trial detention, claiming that Judge Felipe de Jesús Delgadillo Padierna had «wrong», «deficient» and «deficient» conclusions at the hearing of the October 22nd.
The defendant called for «the immediate cessation» of the precautionary measure and «freedom is ordered», as explained in the document submitted on 26 October. This would open the door for Robles to leave the jail at the decision of the magistrate and not the judge who presides over his case, securing the defense Political Animal.
The resolution must be issued in 15 days and there are three possibilities. One is that the magistrate, as in the previous appeal, could again order the judge to re-enter the hearing to review the prison as an injunction.
However, on 22 October last – when the hearing on 13 August, at which he imposed pre-trial detention – Delgadillo Padierna did not change his arguments and confirmed his decision by considering that there is a «real risk of escape» on the part of the accused.
You may be interested in Liar, partial, political revenge: the arguments at Rosario Robles’ hearing
The second scenario is for the magistrate to agree with the judge and confirm the extent that Robles has been in the women’s prison of Santa Martha Acatitla since last August.
And the last is for the magistrate to make the decision to release Robles, even without the endorsement of Judge Delgadillo Padierna. This could be a possible scenario because in the first appeal, Judge Ricardo Paredes considered that the prison violated the rights of the accused, as it was an harmful and not proportional measure.
In the appellate document, the defense states that «the arguments made by the supervisory judge, in a respectful manner, must be classified as ‘partial’, ‘unobjective’ and even ‘biased’ in order to justify an alleged risk of evasion of defendant.»
They argue that Rosario Robles voluntarily appeared to two hearings despite being outside the country, proving that he did not want to evade justice.
«Nothing would have prevented him from indefinitely lengthening his stay abroad, or modifying his initial itinerary, to effectively hide or flee, which did not happen (except in the imagination of the control judge), who far from valuing favourably the defendant’s conduct distorts it in order to seek to justify the incorrect, excessive and improper precautionary measure issued against him,» the appeal states.
Judge Delgadillo Padierna is the nephew of Dolores Padierna, wife of René Bejarano, who was imprisoned for receiving alleged bribes from businessman Carlos Ahumada, then a sentimental partner of Rosario Robles, who was head of Federal District Government.
Read more: Financial Intelligence prepares a complaint against Rosario Robles for land sale
Therefore, the defence filed a «recusal» with the judge on Friday, 25 October, that is, he asked him to drop the case because of the alleged conflict of interest over his family ties, a procedure that must be resolved this week as well.
But, for now, the judge decided at the hearing on 22 October to ratify the decision to keep Rosario Robles in prison, although the «conclusions reached by the Judge regarding its scope and value are erroneous and otherwise insufficient to justify the imposition of the precautionary measure».
Among the judge’s considerations is that Robles’ defense lied in the reason for the defendant’s stay abroad, because at one point he said he was on vacation and on another occasion that he was taking a course.
However, the defence assured the appeal that this is not true, because «what the defendant said about the reason for the trip has not been varied by herself and, in any event, the fact that her defence body had apparently pointed to a different motive , rather than a falsehood or contradiction, would, where appropriate, be an inaccuracy or ignorance on the part of that defender».
With regard to the fact that there is no certainty about your domicile because the Crime Prevention Planning, Analysis and Information Center (CENAPI), the prosecution’s intelligence body located an application for a driver’s license allegedly made by Robles in which he registers an address other than his residence of the Mayor Coyoacán, the defence discredits that evidence.
«The CENAPI report does not have sufficient legal scope to establish a falsity of the domicile; The Federation Prosecutor’s Office also failed to justify objective evidence that this diverse domicile was owned or effectively inhabited by María del Rosario Robles Berlanga.»
In that regard, the defence insists, the essential element was not assessed, since «the existence of the dolmancy was omitted», which would underpin the alleged falsehood.
What we do in Animal Político requires professional journalists, teamwork, dialogue with readers and something very important: independence. You can help us keep going. Be part of the team.
Subscribe to Animal Politician, receive benefits and support free journalism.#YoSoyAnimal