Supreme Court grants appeal against Martinelli kidnap

 The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice granted an amparo of guarantees in favor of the former attorney general of the Kenia Porcell, which revokes the decision of the Superior Court (March 4, 2022) on the admission of the civil lawsuit that former president Ricardo Martinelli filed her.

With the decision, all the proceedings that were part of the process are nullified, including the kidnapping action against the former attorney.

The lawsuit filed against Porcell was due to statements she gave to a media outlet on July 24, 2019, when serving as Attorney General in which the oral trial of the “punctures” case against the former president was taking place. He was subsequently found not guilty.

The ruling of March 28, 2023, has a presentation by magistrate Olmedo Arrocha, who began by explaining the role played by the position.

By holding the position of Attorney General, he maintains very special connotations as he represents the institution of the Public Ministry and society, directing investigations of crimes, exercising criminal action, defending the interests of the state, and providing international judicial assistance in cases specified by law.

“But, in addition, as a guiding principle of the Public Ministry is the accountability that implies the space for dialogue between public servants and citizens, in order to generate transparency and trust when showing progress, difficulties, and results in the exercise of their functions, with the limitations, of course, established by Law No. 6 of January 22, 2002, which dictates standards for transparency in public management and dictates other provisions” is indicated in the document.

For the magistrates of the Court, it is not a new fact that whoever represents the Public Ministry issues statements about certain investigations of national interest within the limits allowed by the Constitution and the law.

In addition, they state that it is not clearly observed in the original claim whether what the plaintiff is seeking is compensation for slander and libel or if it is aimed at a breach of respect for the presumption of innocence. This confusion increases with the reading of the facts of the lawsuit when information is introduced that accounts for the defendant’s plea of ​​not guilty.

The first conclusion reached by the Court in this ruling is that even though the defendant court has indicated in a novel way that the alleged statements made by the former attorney were in a personal capacity, it is evident for this superiority that the opposite is true since they were made within the framework of the investigation is carried out by the Public Ministry and by virtue of the functions that it carried out.

“And it is that it is difficult to entertain the idea that, in the circumstances in which the statements narrated in the facts of the lawsuit were given, the defendant was being interviewed as a natural person and not because of the status of an official”.