Court Rejects Mario Martinelli’s Appeal in PAN Grains Case

The First Superior Court of the First Judicial District did not admit an appeal for guarantees filed by Mario Martinelli, who is facing a trial for the alleged commission of the crime of embezzlement through the irregular purchase of bags of grain with funds from the defunct National Aid Program (PAN).  The court’s decision was adopted on February 28, but it only became known on Thursday, March 6, when it was disclosed through an edict.  The appeal, filed by defense attorneys Pedro Meilán and Joel Hernández Arosemena, was directed against Judge Águeda Rentería.  This investigation began in August 2014, when Panamanian deputy José Luis Varela, pictured below, revealed in a television interview the alleged existence of overpricing in rice purchases with PAN funds. 

According to Varela’s statement, the PAN purchased a quintal of rice for $80, when it cost $25 on the local market. This was confirmed in an audit report by the Comptroller General of the Republic in 2015, which revealed that higher prices were paid than those established by the Agricultural Marketing Institute (IMA) and that the final destination of the grains was unknown, among other aspects.  More than 40 people have been named in the process, including Rafael Guardia Jaén, former director of the PAN; Abraham Williams, who was head of purchases for that entity, and Mario Martinelli, businessman and brother of former president Ricardo Martinelli (2009-2014), who governed when the events under investigation took place. 

According to attorney Joel Hernández Arosemena, the summons to trial of Mario Martinelli violates Article 31 of the Constitution, which establishes the fundamental principle of “typicality in criminal matters.”  “In this case, the crime of embezzlement can only be committed by a public servant. It is a requirement or essential element of the criminal type. And Mr. Mario Martinelli was not and has never been a public servant, so it is legally impossible for him to commit this crime,” he said.  He said that in the Comptroller’s report on this case, “Mr. Mario Martinelli was not even mentioned” and that the Court of Accounts “totally excluded him from patrimonial responsibility in this case.”  Judge Rentería, pictured above, did not agree with him.