The Palomino case: the former director of the Judicial Police lost the “circus” in the Supreme Court; They denied the appeal

The Supreme Court of Justice rejected the appeal and reopened the case against the former Director of Police, General (r) Rodolfo Palomino, for allegedly obstructing the raid of the businessman Luis Gonzalo Gallo Restrepo, who is currently involved in parapolitical crimes. JEP

According to what was reported in the indictment, then General Rodulfus Palomino López, on February 8, 2014; “The improper use of influence from the position held by the director general of the National Police in the delegated prosecutor before the specialized judges of the Circuit, Sonia Lucero Velásquez Patiño, with the decision not to issue a material arrest against Luis Gonzalo Gallo Restrepo. . The businessman was arrested on March 10 of that year on charges of conspiracy to commit a crime, money laundering, and complicity.

In a 66-sEMANA document, the Chamber of the Criminal Court mentioned the relationship between Gallo Restrepo and former president Andrés Pastrana Arango, president of the World Bank and former minister Luis Alberto Moreno, who led Palomino to avoid him. to catch

“Palomino López, in the company of the director of the Judicial Police (Dijin), went to the residence of Sonia Lucero Velásquez Patiño, located in the La Colina neighborhood of this city (Bogotá); report the relationship between former president Andrés Pastrana Arango, president of the World Bank and former minister Luis Alberto Moreno with Gallo Restrepo, It was set forth in the determination of the Supreme Court.

The main thing I hear is that the Supreme Court of Justice was recorded in its possession in 2014, in the house of the prosecutor Velásquez. There he heard Palomino saying: “I would like to convince you that the purpose is good; I hope that the indecent proposal is not indicated”, this refers to Gallo Restrepo. Then they try to suggest that they do not take this person and, apparently, other businessmen. These things were first tested by SEMAN.

As established by the Criminal Chamber, the general (r) also “warned” about the impact that the capture of Gallo Restrepo could have on “the donations made by him and described the legitimate origin of the properties of which the named owners held”. .

Regarding the arguments, Lucero Velásquez Patiño recalled the conversation they had at his home.

Due to these facts, on May 25, 2017, in a preliminary hearing held in the Superior Court of Bogotá, the Office of the Attorney General, emeritus, committed the crime of influence peddling as a public servant. On August 15, 2017, the indictment was filed and on July 26, 2018, the jurisdictional action was sent to the Special Chamber of First Instance.

In the sessions of August 25, 2021, March 2, March 30, and September 27, 2022, a preparatory hearing was held, in which the evidence requests were resolved.

After this, the defense of Palomino’s attorney filed an appeal in which he requested to partially recall the contested order and, for “various ways of seeking the conviction of the Prosecutor’s office excludes the evidence of Gina Maria Cabarcas Macías and Luis Eduardo Montealegre Lynett”, which was denied. “

It should be noted that Gina María Cabarcas Macías, then the prosecutor in charge of the Analysis and Context Unit, had direct knowledge of the events that took place and, like Superior Velásquez Patiño, “will be able to indicate what happened before, during and after the meeting. Palomino López”, according to the defense .

Regarding the rejected evidence, the defense “added that Luis Eduardo Montealegre Lynett, in his capacity as Attorney General of the Nation at the time of the events, must have had some knowledge of the process that was taking place, the arrest suggested. The statement requested by the prosecutor and the official letter sent by her. Then “direct testimony it is a situation which, because of its importance, must be decided.

The Special Chamber of the First Instance rejected the testimony of Cabarca and Montealegre as “inconsequential”. First, says the leader of the court, because “he had no direct knowledge of the facts, and furthermore what is meant by what he announces if when Palomino approached the entrance of the captured Gallo Restrepo, which does not answer to the judgment.”

Second, Montealegre, because, “in addition to the absence of direct knowledge of the facts, he omitted the defense, demanding what were the reasons for testifying and preventing the relationship with the intervening defendant. warrant. “capture”.

Finally, the Criminal Cassation Chamber ordered that the proceedings be referred to the Special Chamber of First Instance of the Supreme Court of Justice and declared that there would be no appeals against this decision.