The
Magistrates, four men and one woman, seated
side-to-side along a large wooden desk on a
raised platform, had an imposing presence
over the courtroom. They conducted the
proceedings in a serious and professional
manner at all times, commanding the respect
of everyone in the room. Indeed, this
setting and decorum was much different than
had been observed at the trial.
Facing them in the front of the courtroom
were the lawyers, the defense on one side
and the plaintiffs on the other. Osvaldo,
appearing calm and sporting a neatly trimmed
beard, was seated with his attorneys, which
included Juan Tovar, Rodrigo Araya, and
former criminal judge (First Circuit of San
Jose) Vivian Coles Calderon, and an
assistant.
On the plaintiff side, both Fiscal Walter
Espinoza and Lic. Ilam Melendez, the two
principal figures for the prosecution in the
court trial, were notably absent from the
appeal hearing. Instead, an alternate
attorney who seemed unfamiliar with the
material was there to represent the office
of the prosecutor, and another alternate
represented the investors for the Victims
Defense Office. Joining them on that side
of the room was Ewald Acuņa and a second
lawyer representing individual investors.
Several members of Osvaldo's immediate
family were present in the sparsely attended
courtroom, with some 25 people in the
audience.
Oral presentations began about 8:45 and were
over by 10:00. The three lawyers
representing investor appeals spoke first,
with Acuņa leading the way and devoting some
of his few minutes to defending his own
actions during his recruitment of clients.
Each lawyer was allotted 15 minutes to state
their case, but each finished in far less
time. To the casual observer, the
Magistrates seemed unimpressed.
The defense followed with Lic Rodrigo Araya,
who spoke in favor of the defense case for
appeal in the civil case against the
corporations, as well as on behalf of Paula
Dinculescu, wife of Luis Enrique Villalobos,
and who is appealing to the court the
seizure of her personal bank accounts caught
in the tangle by the wide-net policy of
gathering evidence used by Fiscal Espinoza
during his investigation.
Araya was followed by Lic. Vivian Coles
Calderon speaking on behalf of Osvaldo
Villalobos. The former judge gave the main
presentation of the day with the longest
time allotment of 30 minutes, and provided
the courtroom an impressive summary of the
appeal of the civil and criminal aspects of
the conviction. All eyes were glued on the
Lic. Coles as she gave a concise and
masterful presentation of the main points
contained in Osvaldo's appeal (previously
summarized on our UCCR Web site).
Lastly, Osvaldo Villalobos accepted his
legal right to speak, and used the occasion
to ask the court for a reduction of the 18
year sentence imposed by the lower court to
the minimum sentence for the offenses for
which he was convicted, 18 months.
Osvaldo's request to reduce the term of his
sentence legally formalizes the option out
of several choices for resolution available
to the magistrates (see below).
The magistrates will now take the various
appeals into consideration and will rule on
each based on a majority vote of the panel
of five. There is no way to predict when or
how the high court will rule.
As has been stated by Luis Enrique himself,
there are four possible outcomes to this
process, and we quote from his last
communication (posted on our UCCR Web site):
1) Confirm and maintain the sentence and the
punishment imposed such as it was resolved
by the Trial Court Tribunal of the First
Judicial Circuit.
2) Reduce the term of the punishment imposed
on the individual sentenced in the first
instance.
3) Order a new trial, but this time the
prosecutor and plaintiffs may only accuse
for the crimes of fraud and financial
intermediation.
4) Declare an absolution of the accused
based on the allegations made by the defense
in the Petition of Appeal.
Happy Holidays and may this New Year finally
bring us the resolution we have all awaited
for so long.
Thank you.