Wednesday, August 10

The Supreme Court confirms the convictions for the crime of the Urban Guard

The Supreme Court has decided to confirm the sentences imposed on two ex-officers of the Guàrdia Urbana for the murder of the ex-partner of one of them in 2017. The judges confirm 25 years in prison for Rosa María Peral and 20 years for Albert López for the murder of her then partner in Vilanova i La Geltrú in May 2017. Known as the crime of the Guàrdia Urbana because of the status of agents of both the murderers and the victim.

Rosa Peral’s alibi, in ten keys

Know more

The events, the Supreme Court firmly declares, took place on May 2, 2017 when the two defendants murdered the victim in the house he shared with Peral. Then they started the plan to try to involve their ex-husband: they used the victim’s telephone “to pretend that he was doing his life normally” and they were located near the home of Peral’s ex-husband, with whom he had a “very conflictual” relationship. They finally put the body in a car and set it on fire near the Foix reservoir.

The judges confirm the sentences of the two, which in addition to the jail sentence includes compensation of 450,000 to the victim’s son, 225,000 for his father, 100,000 for each of his two brothers and 10,000 euros more to his ex-partner.

The sentence recognizes that it is difficult to determine how the victim was murdered, especially “due to the contradictory versions of the two defendants, who reciprocally attribute the material execution and postpone their respective interventions to the acts aimed at disposing of the body.” The state of the body did not allow to discover how they had ended their life, although, says the sentence, “there are some unobjectionable extremes such as that the death occurred inside the home of the accused and not as a result of the fire.”

The Supreme Court, with Judge Ana Ferrer as speaker, has no doubts that it was “a previously designed plan” to kill him at a time of great vulnerability. “Executed at an hour, 03.00 in the morning, in which, whether or not he had ingested a drug, experience suggests that the victim’s state of relaxation or drowsiness is reasonable, who also, let’s not forget, has spent a day relative in his country house, and that he could not even be alerted by the dogs, because the animals did not bark. ”