“I cannot take responsibility for acts I have not committed.” With this phrase, lawyer Manuel A., being investigated in the Metastasis case, withdrew his request for a plea bargain and will now be tried under an ordinary procedure.
The decision of the practicing lawyer, accused of being an accomplice in a “criminal structure” that influenced the justice system and was led by drug trafficker Leandro Norero, was made public on the morning of Thursday, August 1st, following nearly an hour of intervention by acting Attorney General Wilson Toainga, who revealed the details of the agreement supposedly reached with the defendant and the evidence supporting the accusation as a direct author of the examined organized crime offense.
As part of the agreement apparently reached in the plea bargain, the Prosecutor’s Office was asking for a reduced sentence of 40 months in prison for the accused, the payment of a fine of $5,520, and full compensation for the victim, the Ecuadorian state, of $11,040.
With the defined sentence in Metastasis, Daniel Salcedo has a total of 32 years and 7 months of prison to serve across five cases
Attorney Toainga stated that the accused, in his capacity as a practicing attorney in the province of Cotopaxi, collaborated with the criminal organization being investigated, particularly with Leandro Norero’s lawyer, Christian R., who is identified as a main member of the criminal hierarchy in this case. Christian R. allegedly used his friendship and academic relationship to contact and request Manuel A.’s collaboration in the habeas corpus proceedings filed in Cotopaxi on behalf of Johanna Zambrano, Norero’s sister.
“This collaboration consisted both in advising on the grounds for the habeas corpus actions and as a link to reach the judges responsible for resolving this constitutional action, which in this case concerned judges Santiago Z. and José Luis S. This was recorded in the screenshots of the conversations via the WhatsApp application, maintained between the contact César A. and co-defendant Christian R.,” Toainga mentioned.
In one of the analyzed conversations, it was stated: “Bro, it’s already coordinated. 09H00 when the bank opens, make the deposit, my king. I’m going to send you eight thousand. You figure out how to distribute it. Look dude, for them eight, give me two. This is to generate trust in the next cases. With the absolute confidentiality that has been requested, send me a capture to give you the specific foundational tips. (…) I’ll do it for you, brother.”
According to the Prosecutor’s Office, thus on July 20, 2022, the constitutional habeas corpus demand is presented(…) and a hearing is summoned for July 21 of the same year. Immediately following, as payment for this collaboration, the accused receives in his personal bank account(…), on that same date, three deposits of $2,100, $3,000, and $4,900, totaling $10,000, as had been agreed.
“However, on August 2, 2022, due to the existing media pressure in the hearing of that case, the judges decided to partially accept the habeas corpus demand presented by Johanna Maribel Zambrano Tigua, declaring only the violation of the constitutional right to health, but not her freedom. This event provoked the anger of Leandro Norero, who demanded the immediate return of all the money delivered for that purpose. For this reason, on the same day, César Manuel A. issues a check in favor of Christian R., with which he returns the $10,000 received initially, and the latter deposits the check into his personal account the following day,” said the acting prosecutor.
All of this would be verified, the Prosecutor’s Office mentioned, in the materialization of the chats from Leandro Norero’s cell phones, contained in custody chain number 1427-23, where the conversations between Christian R. and Norero about lawyer Manuel A.’s collaboration in Cotopaxi are recorded, through the Threema application, which have been fully accepted, both in their textual, audio, and graphic content, such as images and video.
These are the ‘transcendental’ facts reported by Mayra Salazar in her effective cooperation, which earned her a reduced sentence of fifteen months in prison
Once this stage is completed, the judge of the National Court of Justice (CNJ) Manuel Cabrera asked the defendant and his lawyer if they agreed with the evidence presented and the suggested penalty. At that point, the directly involved party, attorney Manuel A., stood up and said he needed time to analyze what he had heard from the Prosecutor’s Office with his defense. This request came despite the fact that in Manuel A.’s initial intervention, he accepted having signed the plea agreement in which he acknowledged the facts that the Prosecutor’s Office would indicate.
After a short recess, the defendant said: “Your Honor, I have carefully listened to the Prosecutor’s reasoning regarding the evidence, and I object to it. I object primarily because I disagree that there are three deposits …”. There, Judge Cabrera interrupted him to explain that he should not listen to those objections and that what the defendant should do is say whether or not he accepts the plea agreement he himself requested.
“Your presumption of innocence remains until this moment. If you accept this plea bargain on the terms agreed upon with the Prosecutor’s Office, you will be declared responsible for the accused acts. Because at that point, when you accept, you will be accepting the validity and truth of the evidence presented against you. If that is not the case, in the event of a trial, you can dispute that validity, that truth of the evidence being proposed against you, depending on the development of the trial which exists at that stage as ordinary. That is where the conviction or innocence will be verified, but in an ordinary trial. Therefore, I have to establish at this moment whether you accept or do not accept. If you disagree and do not accept, you simply have to let me know, because that is my responsibility,” the judge told the defendant and his defense.
After the magistrate explained the legal situation facing the accused whether to accept or not accept the plea deal, Manuel A. requested the judge to accept his withdrawal from the request to adhere to this quick trial via the plea agreement, since he insisted, “I cannot be responsible for acts I have not committed.”
Plea agreement hearing in the Metastasis case of the defendant Daniel Salcedo, at the National Court of Justice.
Photos :API /Rolando Enríquez Photo: API
In response, the National Court magistrate reiterated that this plea bargain, in addition to the negotiation, has to be verified by the judge, not only concerning formal aspects but also the substantive ones regarding guarantees and constitutional rights.
“Explicitly, the defendant, César Manuel A., has stated that he requests that the plea bargaining not be carried out or that he withdraws at this moment, since he disagrees. Therefore, according to legal standards, article 639 clearly determines the rejection of the acceptance of the agreement and states if the judge considers that the plea agreement does not meet the previously mentioned requirements, that it violates the rights of the defendant or of the victim, or that in some way it is not in accordance with the Constitution and international instruments, it will be rejected and the criminal process will proceed under ordinary proceedings,” concluded Cabrera, who warned that the agreement presented in the hearing cannot be evidence in the ordinary procedure that the accused must face.
Of the twelve individuals under investigation who have requested a plea bargain in the Metastasis case to obtain a reduced sentence, lawyer Manuel A. is the first on that list to withdraw his request as he disagrees with the evidence used by the Prosecutor’s Office to accuse him. Previously, ex-police officers, ex-judges, ex-judicial officials, businessman Daniel Salcedo; and also those like Mayra Salazar, former institutional communicator for the Guayas Court, or Hélive A., right-hand man of drug trafficker Leandro Norero, have been sentenced to 40 months in prison for being effective cooperators of justice. (I)
