The school received a complaint from a mother whose daughter had been touched inappropriately by strangers during school hours. An investigation was initiated by the school, based on the information provided by the parents. Images were obtained from the security cameras in the areas indicated.
Likewise, the school filed a criminal complaint against the cleaning staff (from an outsourced company) for allegedly committing the crime of inappropriate touching. However, after that, the parents filed a complaint against the school’s principal for allegedly committing the crimes of actual concealment (for not handing over the new images requested) and for omission to denounce.
The Prosecutor’s Office, in an erroneous interpretation of the facts, formalized the investigation against the principal for the above-mentioned crimes, but the Court, based on our defense arguments, only accepted to continue with the process in relation to the crime of actual concealment, since the school had reported the facts and there was no omission.
After the additional investigation, in which we participated in all the proceedings, the Prosecutor’s Office issued a disposition concluding that there was no merit to charge the school’s principal with the crime of actual concealment, requesting the dismissal of the case. The new court referred the case to the Superior Prosecutor’s Office for ratification or rectification of the Provincial Prosecutor’s opinion.
Based on our arguments, the Superior issued a disposition ratifying the request of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. With this decision, the court ordered the case against the school’s principal to be closed, and the case was closed with the consent of the court.
This result was very important, not only because there were questions about the impartiality of the judge, but also because any damage to the institutional image of the school was avoided.
