The presumption iuris tantum is a legal mechanism is essential in all model legal just, but in no case an absolute truth unshakable. In colloquial terms, this presumption is one that supports that the word of an agent of the law, for example, a Civil Guard, is in itself a proof of the crime or violation committed. The probative value of the word of the agent is sufficient, for example, that we can get a traffic ticket for talking on the cell phone, do not use the safety belt, or any other violation, and there is no documentary evidence, like a photograph of a radar of speed. But then the problem arises. What if the agent has not exercised honesty in their work? That has been the reason which has led to an agent of the Civil Guard to be sentenced to 3 years in prison, and also, of course, to disqualification and suspension of employment and salary.
The Provincial court of Madrid have proven that the agent acted abusing of their role and status as agent of the law.
The importance of the case lies precisely in the fact that the victim of what the Supreme Court considers an “abuse of their function and condition” could prove his innocence in the penalties that are attributed to it. According to the Madrid Provincial court that issued the judgment, the fines would have come as a result of an incident on the road, in which the victim was surprised by a car that slowed suddenly, for no apparent reason, and berated a previous incident.
The Audience would have ruled that after the incident, the officer convicted would have gone to your job, you would have found out who was the driver of the car that had the incident, and retaliation would have extended two newsletters of complaint signed with his own self-identification (see finding of fact in Spanish).
Two months later, the victim received two complaints by circular behind another vehicle without leaving a free space that allows to stop without collision in case of hard braking of the preceding and circular behind another vehicle without signalling the purpose of forward, while maintaining a separation that does not allow, in turn, be advanced by following it with security. Upon receiving the complaints, the driver of the car sanctioned recalled the incident lived on the road, and opted to go to the chief of Traffic to request the copy of the complaints, prove that they had been issued by the same agent, and proceed to a complaint for fraudulent misrepresentation. To make matters worse, the first complaint had been dated by mistake a month before the day on which the incident occurred.
The Civil Guard found the matches in both complaints, and with the car agent and his usual route to start his shift in the command according to the description of the victim of this case, and initiated a criminal prosecution against him. The Audience would have thus ruled that the agent made these allegations before be of service, in condition of a private citizen, and as a retaliation to an incident, prevaliéndose of its status as agent of the Civil Guard and the advantages that stem from this condition.
Even while recognizing that the attitude of the victim could involve a breach of the General Regulation of Circulation, its transformation of the two violations, and the use of his position, would have led to this agent-to-face 3 years in prison for falsification of official document and many others of suspension of employment and salary.
The criminal conviction was strong in January of 2014 and February of 2015, the officer appealed, and the Supreme Court would have rejected the appeal. The agent now waits for the resolution of a request of pardon to know if you will need to enter, or not, in prison.