The first section of the Valencia Court has acquitted the former general director of Public Function of the Consell in the PP stage Ana Brugger, accused of passing in 2018 an answer of an opposition exam to a friend, María Gonzálvez, current advisor of Vox in Les Corts Valencianes and that she also appeared as an accused and has been acquitted.
The events date back to March 10, 2018, during the holding of a test to qualify for the body of Superior Technicians of the Administration of the Generalitat.
The court considers that it is a proven fact that the former senior official and official, taking advantage of the fact that she was in the classroom monitoring the development of the test, consulted on her mobile and wrote some schematized data on some pages that she gave to her acquaintance, but for her presentation as a script, use of abbreviations and hasty handwriting, this information was not intended to be presented as a response from an opponent to the exam.
The court rejects that there is documentary falsification – of which the private accusation exercised by the CGT union accused him – because the seized sheets were a “mere support” to transmit the information and were not intended to be viewed by third parties, nor were they a crime of activities Forbidden to public officials because the former general director did not know the content of the questions before the date of the examination, but instead looked for information on her mobile when they had already been published.
The court considers it proven that Brugger used her ascendancy over the other collaborators in the surveillance to take measures that facilitated the success of her plan, reserved the placement of opponents, delegated innocuous tasks to the other officials and placed her friend in a Convenient opposition to facilitate a “disguised” delivery. The applicant, for her part, tried not to discover the sheets when she received them.
However, according to the court, the elements required in article 390 of the Penal Code (regarding the falsification of documents by officials) do not meet to be a crime, since the opponent who had to deliver the exam was not a public employee, and no accusation has been formulated by article 392 -which includes prison sentences for the individual who commits in a public, official or commercial document any falsehood as an alteration in any of its essential elements; simulation to mislead about its authenticity or suppose in an act the intervention of people who have not had it.
In this regard, the court sees that there is a “use” by the former high position of his position as a vigilante to help copy an opponent who would have benefited if the action had not been discovered by other officials, but that conduct It is not constitutive of the crime of activities prohibited to officials because that information that he provided was consulted on the internet once the test began and was not secret or privileged.
For the court, making an interpretation like the one proposed by the prosecutor – who asked for a fine of 20,000 euros and disqualification from public office for three years – would be “extensive”, would go beyond the literality of the precept and would be contrary to the principle of legality.
The court appreciates recklessness in the complaining union, which demanded six years in prison for Brugger and another three for Gonzálvez, by maintaining a totally heterogeneous accusation with that of the prosecutor, who did not even raise it as an alternative, and that made the prosecution correspond to the Hearing and not a Criminal Court. For this reason, it imposes the payment of costs.