The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected an appeal that sought to annul the sentence imposed on six police officers from the state of Carabobo, assigned to the Police Station of the Naguanagua municipality, accused of murdering a person during the guarimbas of 2017.
Such a decision is contained in sentence number 659 written by Judge Carmen Marisela Castro and which had the endorsement of her colleagues from the Criminal Chamber, Elsa Gómez and Maikel Moreno.
The police officials were sentenced to 28 years and 7 months in prison, in addition to paying 275 tax units. The sentence was issued after being found guilty of murdering Leonardo Augusto González Barreto, an event that occurred on July 27, 2017 in the El Guayabal urbanization, public road, Naguanagua, where acts of violence called by a sector of the opposition occurred.
Due to this fact, the officials were brought to trial between August 3 and November 3, 2021, before the Fourth Court of First Instance of State and Municipal Control of Carabobo. At the end of the oral and public debate, the agents were sentenced to 28 years and 7 months in prison plus a fine of 275 tax units.
The convicted police officers are: Joel Lenin Rodríguez Sánchez, Radameth Gerardo Castillo López, Wuibent Alexander Fernández Riera and Orlimar Johana Medina Blanco, the sentence says.
These Carabobeño uniformed men were found responsible for committing the crimes of aggravated homicide committed with treachery and futile motives; improper use of organic weapon; simulation of a punishable act; gathering and omission of relief.
This sentence was ratified by Chamber Two of the Court of Appeals of Carabobo. For this reason, the police officers’ lawyers went to the Criminal Court to file four appeals, which essentially sought the annulment of the sentence imposed and that a new trial be called.
One of the complaints made in one of the appeals accuses the trial court of not having proven that the police committed the murder of Leonardo González. In response to this complaint, the magistrates respond that it “is unintelligible” and reject it because “it is not within the power of this instance to correct them, which is the absolute responsibility of the petitioners.”
They also denounced that the trial court did not fulfill its role of clearly establishing the facts that it considered proven. Once again, the judges stressed that the appeal is not to air alleged irregularities that occurred in a trial.
