Madrid, Feb 11 (EFE) tested positive.
The Criminal Chamber has issued a sentence, to which EFE has had access, which rejects the appeal of the convicted person against the resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of La Rioja that confirmed the one imposed by the Court of Logroño, for a crime of infidelity in the custody of documents.
In addition to the prison sentence, the Supreme Court ratifies the fine of 3,600 euros and five years of disqualification as a police officer.
The sentence relates that on September 18, 2015 there was a traffic accident at a roundabout in Logroño, where Local Police patrols attended, which after doing breathalyzer tests found that one of the drivers was positive.
The other driver was the son of a local police officer, who went to the scene after being warned by his daughter.
Moments after the accident, the driver who had tested positive called the convicted municipal officer, whom he contacted again the following day, when this officer went to the local police records department and “made part of a report (including the strips) disappear.” breathalyzer control) and shredded them in the paper shredding machine».
A few days after the report had been shredded in the food processor and after two agents reported the disappearance of said document, the copy of the report form (called the “blue copy”) that they themselves provided was found, and the person who had been sanctioned in said report finally paid the fine.
In his appeal, the policeman alleged that neither the content of the conversation had been proven nor that it was precisely the owners of the phone who called him, “it would be mere suspicion.”
And as for the recording of the security camera in which it is seen how the agent destroys some papers with breathalyzer strips, he says that “it is not clear what is being destroyed” and that, in any case, he could have destroyed the certificate by mistake.
But the Supreme Court defends that “the evidence is compelling” despite the fact that the agent “makes use of the well-known strategy of analyzing the evidence in isolation” when “intertwined” prove the facts.
“A call from that phone, the recording of the destruction of documentation and the admission – he had no other choice – that it could be an action by mistake, lead to that conclusion,” he adds.