The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the sentence of 30 years in prison imposed on two Mexican pilots captured in Cojedes and prosecuted for illicit drug trafficking, among others.
Such decision is contained in judgment No. 222 written by Judge Maikel Moreno and in which the Chamber dismissed the appeal (appeal) filed.
In this case, the defendants are identified as Eduardo Zaragoza Rocha (51) and Jesús Miguel Ángel Flores García, who were captured on July 28, 2020 in the Boca de Perra sector, Tinaco municipality, Cojedes state.
In that place, the neighbors reported that a small plane crashed to the ground: a twin-engine, initials XB-JRE. A commission from the Bolivarian National Guard went to the scene and captured Eduardo Zaragoza, who was the pilot of the aircraft and the co-pilot, Jesús Miguel.
imputation
The two Mexicans were charged with aggravated illicit trafficking in narcotic and psychotropic substances in the form of transportation, association, air circulation in prohibited, restricted or dangerous areas, deviation and fraudulent obtaining of routes, illegal aircraft driving, air circulation in areas other than those established and in unauthorized aerodromes or airports, among other crimes.
The trial against the Mexicans took place between April 16 and September 10, 2021 before the 2nd Trial Court of the Cojedes state, where they were sentenced to 30 years in prison, according to the sentence.
The defendants’ defense attorney, Roque Ramón Mora Gil, appealed the conviction, but the Cojedes Court of Appeals rejected the proposals, according to the ruling of February 17 of this year.
The Mexicans insisted on reversing the 30-year sentence and went to the Criminal Chamber of the country’s highest court where they filed a new appeal against the ruling called an appeal containing nine complaints.
The magistrates analyzed each of the complaints and dismissed them because they were intended for the Chamber to rule on matters already discussed at the trial stage, that is, in the court of first instance, and they left it in the sentence.
“It is noted that in the present case what is wanted is to achieve a new examination of the evidence, ignoring the principle of immediacy that was more than guaranteed in the instance corresponding to the oral trial with the presence of the natural judge,” said the Court. .
