The Criminal Court number 11 of Seville has acquitted the footballer Rubn Castro of the crime of breach of precautionary measure, of which the Prosecutor accused him and the private accusation, for allegedly breaching the prohibition to communicate and get within 300 meters of your ex.
The judgment considers that there is not sufficient evidence of prosecution to distort the principle of presumption of innocence “and to achieve with full conviction an active and fraudulent conduct of the defendant tending to breach the measure that weighed on him,” reported this Tuesday the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia.
The judge explains that in the oral hearing held against the footballer in May 2017 after the complaint of mistreatment filed by his ex-girlfriend, a witness proposed by the athlete’s defense related, without specifying the year, an event that occurred around 1.30 2.00 hours in the summer season.
The witness did not specify the year and pointed out that the incident occurred in a beach area, specifically in a reserved area to which the ex-partner intends to access “to apologize” to the accused.
After that trial for mistreatment, in which the footballer was acquitted, The Prosecutor urged to investigate the alleged commission of a crime of violation of the restraining order issued in 2013 and once the testimony of the witness and friend of Rubn Castro was known.
In the oral hearing for this new case, the magistrate concludes that “Absolutely each and every one of the testimonies is partial, hardly objective and impregnated with an evident subjective charge that lead the court to notably mistrust its content “.
In this way, the version of the accused and the friend who appeared as a witness “has nothing to do” with what was stated by his ex-girlfriend and the witness proposed by her who accompanied him when the events had occurred, since “These are manifestly contradictory versions on the joint presence of the accused “.
In the judgment of the magistrate, and as a conclusion, the testimony offered by the witness in the trial of May 2017 “does not describe any action” of the accused “aimed at allowing access that reveals his friend, generating this testimony a real and reasonable doubt about the terms in which the attempt “of the woman” to apologize ended. to the investigated.
The judge adds that, from the probative procedural perspective, “what we find” in the testimony of this witness “is an indication or suspicion of an encounter provoked” by the ex-partner of the accused and that he accepts.
The magistrate points out that there is not “sufficient evidence of prosecution to distort the principle of presumption of innocence and to achieve with full conviction an active and malicious conduct of the accused tending to breach the measure that weighed on him “.