Publication: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:01 PM
The provincial prosecutor’s office in Madrid is appealing the acquittal of Cristina Cifuentes for a crime of forgery in an official document for the “case of the master”.
The prosecution, which requested three years and three months in prison for the former president of the Community of Madrid, includes in its appeal a request to quash the sentence and to repeat the trial.
He asserts that “every act has a reason for being” and that a consideration of all the evidence in the case against the one acquitted person can only lead him to the conclusion that Cifuentes was the one who “prompted , suggested, and it follows that he insisted, “effectively and intentionally at least with possible fraud for the falsification of the document.”
In his view, in order to arrive at the acquittal, the evidence was “incongruously” and “contrary to the outcome of the evidence at trial” omitted.
The Office of the Prosecutor understands that there are indications of “notorious incriminating significance” which have been ignored “or even to be dismissed” by the Chamber and that, moreover, they are “true”.
He refers, for example, to the direct request that Cristina Cifuentes addressed to the rector of the University Rey Juan Carlos to obtain the supporting documents for the end of the Master.
He also cites other undervalued indications such as the fact that the former president of Madrid was the “sole or main” beneficiary of the falsification of a document which she “urgently needed” to give a response to the media and so avoid “the political consequences. to the who should be faced.”
The appeal also emphasizes that the judgment omits “all” the reasoning on certain tests carried out at the trial “and that they assume indications of participation not ruled out”.
He ensures that the acquittal of Cristina Cifuentes “does not enter into the analysis of the reason for this behavior” while said analysis was “necessary” in view of the accusation against the former president of Madrid.
The prosecution starts from the idea that Cifuentes tried to obtain documentation “of an event which did not take place” and that the only possible way “was to do whatever was necessary to create the appearance of regularity, which implies falsification “.