The lawyer, representing several victims, pointed out that the warnings prior to the collapse and the decisions made that night constitute relevant elements to support a more serious criminal charge
SANTO DOMINGO.– Lawyer Plinio Pina Méndez asserted that there is evidence that, in his opinion, supports an accusation of voluntary homicide with eventual intent against the Espaillat brothers, considering that they were aware of the risks that compromised the safety of the establishment and did not adopt the necessary measures to prevent the tragedy.
During an interview given this Monday to the program El Día, broadcast by Telesistema, channel 11, the legal professional explained that he questioned the initial classification of the Public Ministry from the first stages of the process, when the facts were classified as involuntary homicide.
In that regard, he indicated that the evidence provided by his clients, added to the elements gathered by the prosecuting body, reinforced his conviction that there was a difference between the circumstances described in the investigation and the criminal charge initially attributed.
Differences between involuntary manslaughter and eventual intent
In explaining the basis of her position, Pina Méndez pointed out that the distinction between the two legal figures lies, among other aspects, in the knowledge of the danger and the conduct assumed in the face of the possibility of causing a fatal result.
According to what he explained, dolus eventualis can be configured when a person knows the possibility that his behavior produces serious consequences and, even so, continues acting without adopting the necessary measures to prevent them, in accordance with the applicable legal criteria.
"What existed was quite the opposite," he said, referring to the warnings that, according to his interpretation, occurred before the structure collapsed.
He also rejected claims that this legal concept represents a novel interpretation within the Dominican judicial system. On the contrary, he maintained that the concept of dolus eventualis (reckless intent) has established doctrinal and jurisprudential precedents in the country.
Warnings prior to the collapse
Among the events he considered relevant, the victims' representative mentioned an incident that occurred on the same night as the tragedy, when a large stone hit one of the attendees and grazed his back.
According to her account, Gregory Adame had informed Maribel of what had happened and warned about the need to stop the activity to prevent other people from being injured.
However, according to the version presented during the interview, the measures taken consisted of cordoning off the area, restricting access, and maintaining the celebration.
Based on these events, Pina Méndez maintained that there was sufficient time to evacuate the facility and prevent the outcome. She also noted that one of the workers assigned to block access to the affected area died during the collapse.
Therefore, it considered that these circumstances should be assessed together with the other evidence to establish whether those responsible were aware of the seriousness of the danger and whether their response was adequate to the warnings received.
The final grade will depend on the court
Regarding the judicial decision that opened the possibility of examining the case under the concept of dolus eventualis (reckless intent), the jurist clarified that the magistrate did not declare the defendants guilty, but rather identified elements that justified submitting that classification to the consideration of the competent court.
Similarly, he explained that the process will have to start again before a collegiate court, where the parties will have the opportunity to present their arguments, examine the evidence and exercise their respective means of defense.
In this new stage, he specified, it will be up to the judges to determine the final legal classification once they have assessed all the evidence presented during the trial.
Although he acknowledged that jurisdictional power, he expressed his confidence that the evidence gathered by the Public Prosecutor's Office would allow them to prove the facts presented in the accusation.
Representatives of the victims will request the maximum penalty
Regarding the possible criminal consequences, Pina Méndez stated that the representatives of those affected will request the maximum penalty they deem applicable, taking into account the legal classification and the circumstances that can be proven in the process.
However, he pointed out that the decision regarding a possible conviction and the corresponding sentence will rest exclusively with the judges, who must base their ruling on the evidence discussed during the hearings.
Furthermore, he considered that this case constitutes a warning for owners and managers of establishments open to the public, highlighting the importance of complying with safety regulations, promptly heeding danger signs, and acting to protect the integrity of people.
Relatives of the victims maintain hope for justice
During the broadcast, reactions from the victims' families were also presented, who expressed their expectation that the legal process would move forward until a decision was reached that would bring justice for the losses suffered.
Among the testimonies is that of Melba Grullón, who lost her daughter and her daughter's husband. In a message posted after the court's decision was announced, she stated that, despite the profound pain she faces, she maintains hope of finding solace in justice.
For his part, Magistrate Wilson Camacho stated that the Public Prosecutor's Office will go to the trial stage with the purpose of demonstrating, through the evidence collected, the facts contained in its accusation.
In line with that position, Pina Méndez expressed that she hopes the prosecuting body will support the facts presented during the investigation and maintain a stance consistent with the evidence gathered.
Finally, the jurist advocated for the process to proceed within the legal deadlines, with full respect for the guarantees of the accused and the right of the victims to obtain a judicial response.
The determination of the criminal responsibility of the Espaillat brothers, as well as the final legal classification of the facts, will be the responsibility of the competent court once the process is concluded.
Recommended readings:
- Jet Set case takes a turn: judge changes accusation against the Espaillats to eventual dolus
- Jet Set Case: Public Prosecutor accuses Espaillat brothers of negligence and victims claim up to RD$100 million
- Leonardo Reyes Madera reveals in court that the Jet Set's roof load exceeded five times the amount projected in the original design
