Processing No.

1336/2017

Montevideo, June 2, 2017.

VIEWS:

The preliminary proceedings processed previously in relation to

the investigated G. A. R. M., C. A. B. L. and W. A. R. P. with intervention from the
National Prosecutor's Office in Criminal Matters of 8th Turn, the Defense of individuals

trust in charge of Dr. Camilo Silvera for R., of Dr. Eduardo Lust for R. and the
Public Defense in charge of Dr. Juan Carlos Díaz for B..

RESULTING
1.- From the conducted investigation, sufficient elements of conviction arise that
allow to determine the occurrence of the following facts: May 23, 2017
around 12:20, under circumstances where Dr. G. E. B. L. was present
his study on Juan Carlos Gómez street XXX desk XXX, accompanied by the
Secretary Mrs. A. I. P. arrived at the location where the investigated G. A. R. M. was present, and once

In response to your call, he mentioned to Mrs. P. that he intended to meet with the Dr.
B. for a criminal matter, stemming from a known individual of the lawyer, hailing from the city

de Rivera. The secretary conveyed what the apprehended one mentioned, in the end
attended by B. at the reception where he was briefly interrogated and then
they directed him to the office. R. clarified some details in response to the lawyer's questions,

referring to a person deprived of liberty housed in Rivera but

the case was from Montevideo. The clerk asked who the professional was that was attending
to that person, responding 'the public defender'; for what crime was he being prosecuted,
they caught him with two kilos of marijuana buds and they charged him
possession not for consumption.” The provided data surprised B. due to its
inaccuracy to the extent that he told her "it can't be, you have some wrong data... the

verdad que no me cierra”. R. insistió y le preguntó a B. “¿cuánto cobraría usted por

take charge of the defense?
it was the transfer of Rivera but not to Comcar, Libertad or Canelones Prison,
being able to be the best destination the Soler prison. The lawyer mentioned a figure
waiver of fees so that the consultant would desist but still continued
interested in telling him that he would talk to the inmate's wife and would keep him updated.

next with an advance on a larger amount. B told him that previously

I needed to know the name of the inmate, the court where the case was filed and the
file number, everything that would allow obtaining a clearer picture, to then
Yes, talk about fees. After about fifteen or twenty minutes of consultation, the inquired party

He agreed with B. to return to the studio at 4 PM the next day.

On May 24, 2017, Dr. B. had an interview scheduled with Dr. V. M. and
Mr. P. N., who had been developing in the office since shortly before 4 PM
At 4:05 PM, a person dressed as a woman burst into the room with
a blonde wig, a green sweater, women's leggings and a handbag, pointing with a
revolver at the lawyer; he stopped in the middle of the desk and said to him, 'you, come here to'

here." B. immediately recognized the individual, being the same person with the
that they had spoken the day before about the case of the inmate housed in Rivera. Before
the astonished look of M. and N., the lawyer immediately stood up and began to
walking towards the envelope while saying to him, "what happened?, were you there yesterday?"
"What happened to you?" "We're going to talk." R. kept pointing the revolver at B.
until he said to him, "kneel and turn around" "kneel or I'll shoot you." When B.
approached the perpetrator at a distance of no more than eighty centimeters, the
the subject fired two shots at the professional's chest, but the bullets did not
they left (indicates B.: “I felt with each of the shots that it made the movement with
his hands and he felt the sound of the hammer but the bullet did not come out. That's when I realized

that was coming to kill me"). Since the expert criminal lawyer had confirmed
due to its design and preservation, it was a real weapon, aimed as the only one.
resource to throw oneself at the attacker to prevent him from pulling the trigger of the revolver again and

thus they became entwined in struggle. R. managed to dispel the lawyer's resistance and when

he incorporated himself and fired two more shots to the head that also didn't
they struck, so he used the weapon as a very blunt instrument and, in a
new attack against the life of the victim, struck B. hard on the head,
causing the injury confirmed by the forensic doctor as a cutting wound
contusion of the left temporal frontal scalp measuring ten centimeters,
in the suture at the date of the examination that was performed on May 25, 2017.

R. hurriedly left the place leaving a woman's purse on the desk that
lost in the struggle. Inside was the Iphone 7 cell phone that
A few moments before, he had taken Mrs. A. I. P.. In fact, close to 4 PM
the secretary attended to a person with blonde hair who was seen through the peephole of
the door and when he opened it, he noticed that it was the same individual he had
the day before was crowded. R. lashed out at the woman, pulled a weapon from the backpack
what he was carrying with him and demanded that P. kneel down and put his hands out.
back. Once that was done, he tied his hands behind his back with a black plastic zip tie.
and he took from the iPhone 7 cellphone, subscriber number XXXXXXX, that the
madam had placed next to her. She threw it on the reception floor, face down,
donde permaneció sin posibilidad de movilizarse y se dirigió hacia el escritorio de
B., place where the historic event occurred.

The building's security cameras allowed for viewing, in very clear shots
good definition, the income and expense of the item in each of the
opportunities in which he/she attended the desk where the event took place.

2.- The provisions of article 113 of the C.P.P. were fulfilled by obtaining a statement.
to the investigated in the presence of their sponsoring lawyers.

G. R. acknowledged that he visited the law office of Dr. G. B. at the request of a

unknown, referring that on Thursday or Friday (May 19 or 20) before the event,
They left him a yellow envelope that said 'For G. el Chucky' containing a note.
in which they proposed to "scare" a professional. The person, unknown to him
perpetrator offered him the sum of $50,000 payable half upon accepting the task
and the balance once fulfilled. To ensure acceptance, R. had to leave the
about under a stone near the electricity meter of the house on the street
Copernicus XXXX where he resided. Thus he proceeded and two days later - on Sunday -

received another envelope in the morning that was left under the door,
they attached all the professional's data, their photograph, an address that does not
was updated and the sum of $ 25,000. The accused admitted his attendance at
Dr. B's study on May 23 and 24, 2017. The last time, with the costume.
of a woman, she headed in a taxi that she boarded around the corner from the Casino del Parque Rodó.

Regarding the weapon used, he indicated that it was a toy replica, similar to
a .22 caliber revolver, acquired in "a shout", where I had also obtained
the blonde wig. He acknowledged before the Court that he pulled the trigger of the weapon when

he aimed towards B.'s chest and as a way to avoid the reproach added 'but
obviously it wasn't going to fire -the shot- because the gun was a toy.
he was asked, in light of the testimonies of witnesses M. and N., about the two
shots that he also fired at B.'s head as he was getting up in the
floor, limiting himself to answering "I wanted to scare you." In this way, without achieving the

Finally pursued, he received a balance of $15,000 and not the amount

acordada.
R. was already telling his friends L. C. and C. B. that he was a hitman and then after the
event boasted of its Machiavellian activity by sending videos with images of
informative and encrypted messages where he asserted his role as a factotum. In that
the coindicted W. A. R. and C. B. acted in favor of R., since,
knowing the axial participation it had in that incident, immediately
they deleted all the information transmitted in both communications, at the request of
R..

B., que continuó permitiendo el alojamiento temporal de G. R. en su vivienda, era

aware that storing those data on your mobile phone,
they compromised their situation and that of R.. W. A. R., also aware of the activity
deployed by his friend 'Chuky', agreed to take him to the town of Toledo in
a company truck where he works and it was finally recorded in the
cameras from Terminal Tres Cruces accompanying R. when he was leaving with
destination to Chuy, knowing that he was wanted by the police authority.

3.- The proof of the facts considered in the sub-examination arises from the
actions carried out by the Tactical Information Directorate of the Chief's Office
Montevideo police; photographic and film survey obtained from the cameras
of security of the Unified Command Center and of the building where it took place
the narrated event; forensic medical report; seizure record; transcription of
telephone interventions; statements from G. B., A. I. P., V. M., P. N., H. A., C.
F. V., M. P., L. C. G. and depositions of the accused G. A. R., C. A. B. and W. R.
P. duly ratified with legal assistance.
4.- Given the transfer to the Public Prosecutor's Office, its Representation addressed it solidly.

ruling requesting the prosecution and imprisonment of G. A. R. M. as the author of a

crime of homicide particularly aggravated in the degree of attempt, in
concurrence outside of the repetition with a crime of Deprivation of liberty, both
in real reiteration with a theft crime. Likewise, he requested the processing and
prison of W. A. R. P. and C. A. B. L. under the accusation of being the author of a crime of
Cover-up.

5.- R.'s defense disagreed with the indictment due to the absence of animus necandi;
What existed was an intention to go and cause a scare through injuries.
the weapon was made of toy material and therefore unsuitable for killing. He did not share the

reproach for the crime of Deprivation of Liberty since the victim in no way
at the moment she was unable to obtain her freedom. Regarding the crime of Theft
he pointed out that in any case it would be an attempted hypothesis. He concluded his presentation

referring that from the existing evidence it could support an accusation for
Especially aggravated injuries.

6.- The Defenders of R. and B. also did not agree with the Prosecutor's request,
arguing that the invoked criminal type requires a more active participation and
deep from which they verified. For the eventuality that is available the
trial, they requested that it be without physical restraint.

CONSIDERING:
1.- At this stage of the process, it is about determining whether sufficient evidence is established.

that legitimizes the prosecution filed in the hearing by the Public Prosecution Service,
without this implying prejudging or issuing a definitive conclusion (art. 125 inc.4
literal a and b and article 132 of the CPP). The factual basis necessary for the accusation
the penalty is constituted by the probability of the incriminated fact, which constitutes
a degree immediately prior to the certainty required only for the sentence of
sentence.
2.- The processing order ratio is a judgment of probability regarding the
commission of an illegal act and the participation of a subject in it. Such
the trial is aimed at establishing the possibility of an object in the criminal process
constituted by a claim that although it has not been fully exercised by the
Public Ministry, it is indeed in a preliminary form, requiring the Judge to submit a
subject to process, with a precarious definition of the elements inherent to any
pretension: subject, object, and cause. The object of the incident is constituted by
strictly by the restraint of the accused and the cause is the simple appearance
delictive behavior that is preliminarily attributed to him, regardless of the
type that serves solely for the verification of the summary cognition, justifying
that attachment. In this way, the quality of is provisionally attributed,
charged against a subject and also provisionally expressed, an object of evidence;
but in no way does a binding pronouncement exist (that 'establishes the state')
sobre la calificación jurídica de los hechos porque ésta no es más que “incidenter
only for the purpose of a probability judgment that allows the existence of the
process. (Cfme. Fernando Cardinal Piegas - "Reflections on the function and
utility of the processing order concerning the object of the process, its
transcendence in the principle of ne bis in idem and the closure of the procedure due to

disappearance of the criminal offense that supports it" - Criminal Law Journal No. 20
pp. 445-455.

3.- From the emergence of the works and previously summarized facts flows the
rational existence of suitable evidence to accuse R. M. prima facie.
participation in acts that integrate the materiality of criminal types
contents in articles 312 numeral 2; art. 281 and 340 of the Penal Code. In effect, the
forewarned, in compliance with an express agreement, prior to the beginning of the

execution, consisting of the payment of the sum of $ 50000, burst into the room where
the victim was present and fired four shots with a revolver towards the person
from G. B., at a very short distance and aimed at vital area (two toward the chest and
another two to the head), shots that did not go off so he decided to strike
strongly in the head of the victim, to hurriedly leave the place.
vital area to which the shots were directed, the short distance between the agent and
the victim as well as the potential offensive capacity of the weapon used, only serve to
corroborate the homicidal intent clearly revealed in the perpetrator,
purpose that was not fulfilled due to reasons beyond the agent's control.
Since the projectiles were not effectively fired, G. R. did not manage to
materialize the result adjusted to the intention of causing death, so that its
the conduct was parked at the degree of the attempt. There is an attempt when the author with the

the end of committing a specific crime begins its execution, but does not complete it
due to circumstances beyond their control. The attempt is characterized by the lack of
some element of the objective type, however the subjective type (intent and elements
Subjectives remain identical to the consummation.

It is also appropriate to assign the type provided in Article 281 of the Penal Code for
when the agent tied up secretary A. I. P. with a seal with her hands
threw it to the ground, preventing it from moving freely or at least
curtailing the power of free movement, a situation that did not cease until
that the agent left the desk and professionals installed there found the
woman in that position, proceeding to release her. By depriving Mrs. P. of her liberty,
the encased had deactivated the main post from where it could emanate a
alert towards B., thus allowing access to the place where
found its objective. The commission of this crime operated as a means for the
subsequent action of the agent, this is a teleological connection, since the crimes
they were linked from start to finish (article 56 of the Penal Code)

Keeping in mind R.'s confession regarding taking the cell phone from the...
receptionist and arranged it in the woman's purse she was carrying with her,
It corresponds to protect the claim raised by the commission of a crime of
Theft, under the cloak of a different criminal design (art. 54 of the Penal Code). Without
the embargo should be ascribed to the degree of attempt given that, as a result of the struggle

between the perpetrator and Dr. B., the wallet remained on the desk without R.
has had the ability to dispose of the asset, remaining therefore in stage
imperfect execution of the crime of Theft.

Regarding the situation of B. and R., the sufficient elements of conviction

they facilitate the attribution of the crime of Concealment as they verified
behaviors aimed at favoring R. (personal cover) now
hindering the investigation, as they maintained contacts to ensure that they
erase any trace of communication related to the event; either by fostering that
R. could evade the pursuit of justice.

4.- Preventive detention is established as a procedural rule due to its purposes or teleology and
norm material due to its effects or ontology, therefore it is concluded that it is the same

it represents an ambiguous or complex norm. Therefore, the general regime persists.

procedural rule of preventive detention that enables it when there is
test pending completion and this may be frustrated when the detainee
He has been released and obstructed the ongoing legal proceedings. However, that does not
exempts the decision-maker from an ontological assessment in which the degree of
the harm to the protected legal good that in this case reaches levels of
inevitable reproach regarding B. and R..

The measure of physical restraint requested in relation to R. M. is justified.

widely due to the criminal actions of the accused, the seriousness of the behavior
verified and the punitive dosimetry with which the denounced figures are punished,
in addition to his status as a repeat offender.
5.- For the reasons stated and in accordance with the provisions established in Article 15
and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic, 125 and following of the CPP and arts. 1, 3, 5, 18,
54, 56, 60, 197, 281, 310, 312 numeral 2 and article 340 of the Penal Code

R E S U E LV O :
1.- To decree the processing with imprisonment of G. A. R. M. charged with the commission
for a crime of Deprivation of Liberty in concurrence outside of repetition with a
crime of Homicide particularly aggravated in attempt degree,
regime of real reiteration with a crime of Theft in attempted degree.

2.- Order the processing with imprisonment of W. A. R. P. and C. A. B. L. under the

imputation of a crime of Concealment.

3.- Put on the style certificate to meet the preventive measures available to
this Headquarters, preparing the corresponding communication to the Police Headquarters of

Montevideo.

4.- Request and add a record of criminal history and reports

supplementary as necessary.

5.- Consider Dr. Silvera as appointed as the defendant's counsel R.

accused R. to Dr. Lust and accused B. to Dr. Díaz and affirmed
included in the summary are the present actions with notice of the Defense and of
Public Ministry.
6.- The detention of M. P., J. R. P., and L. C. G. is ordered to be terminated.

7.- Líbrese orden de captura a nivel nacional de R. y A. M. M., hermanos de G. R.

M..

8.- The Tactical Information Directorate is entrusted with the continuation of actions.
police in order to identify the instigator of the activity carried out by the
accused G. R.

Dr. José María Gómez Ferreyra

Judicial Judge