Could the falsehoods of Mazón and Vilaplana have consequences?

BarcelonaThe twists and turns in the accounts given by former Valencian president Carlos Mazón and journalist Maribel Vilaplana regarding the afternoon of October 29, 2024, have been constant. They have often had to alter their stories, contradicted by statements from other key figures involved in the management of the DANA storm, which caused 229 deaths in the Valencian Community. The WhatsApp messages handed over last Friday by former Valencian councilor Salomé Pradas are the latest example of this and further expose Mazón, who at 4:30 p.m. already knew there was a death in Utiel and yet decided to continue having lunch with Vilaplana. In court, the journalist also denied that during lunch Mazón called the president of the Valencia Provincial Council, Vicent Mompó, after she received a message with images of the damage in Utiel. Mompó refuted this, acknowledging in a recent interview that the call did take place (six minutes after Vilaplana received the message, in fact), and the investigating judge considered it "highly improbable" that the journalist didn't hear the conversation. Could Mazón and Vilaplana face any legal consequences for changing their story?

First, it's important to distinguish between their situations. The former president of the Valencian Generalitat retains his seat in the Valencian Parliament (Les Corts) and, therefore, parliamentary immunity. For this reason, the judge in Catarroja investigating the handling of the DANA storm cannot indict him. If he resigns his seat, the judge will then have free rein to include him in the case as a suspect. This Saturday, relatives of the victims demanded that Mazón resign from the Valencian Parliament after Pradas's WhatsApp messages were leaked.

"The Spanish judicial model is based on guarantees. That is, the rights of the accused are protected, and it is the accuser who must present the evidence," explains Josep Joan Moreso, a jurist and professor of philosophy of law at Pompeu Fabra University (UPF). "The accused is authorized to do nothing that would be detrimental to their case, and if telling the truth would be detrimental to them, they can lie," he says. So far, Mazón has only appeared before the commissions investigating the DANA storm in the Valencian Parliament (Les Corts) and the Congress of Deputies, where he was indeed obligated to tell the truth. Article 502.3 of the penal code stipulates fines and even a prison sentence of between six and twelve months for lying in these commissions. However, no one has ever been convicted under this article.

Is it the crime of perjury?

Vilaplana's case is different. The journalist appeared in court as a witness. In that capacity, she is indeed obligated to tell the truth. This obligation is reiterated by the court in the courtroom: "You are told that you have the obligation to tell the truth, and if you fail to do so, you are warned that you may be breaching your obligation and, therefore, committing the crime of perjury," explains Pol Olivet, associate professor of criminal law at the University of Barcelona and a lawyer. However, Jordi Nieva, professor of procedural law at the University of Barcelona, points out that, both in Mazón's case in the Valencian Parliament and the Congress of Deputies, and in Vilaplana's case in the courts, it is a crime "that is not easy to prosecute." "We are asking for a photographic record of events that took place more than a year ago, and with the passage of time, memories become blurred and are reinterpreted," warns the professor, who adds: "You can't condemn a person for making a mistake." Olivet specifies that the line between a half-truth or a falsehood resulting from the vagueness caused by the passage of time and a punishable false statement can be interpreted as being crossed when what is stated clearly differs from reality, affecting "core issues" of the case. In any case, the lie should be "flagrant" and it should be possible to prove that it was intentional.

Since proving the crime of perjury is very difficult because it is complicated to determine if a false statement was made deliberately, "the most likely scenario [in Vilaplana] is that she will be summoned to testify again," Olivet points out. For the time being, following her testimony, the private prosecution requested that a separate investigation be opened against her for perjury, based on statements they suspect do not align with reality. One example is the claim that Vilaplana did not hear the phone call between Mazón and Mompó that November afternoon. Although the judge considered this "highly improbable" given the size of the private room where the former president and the journalist had lunch, she refused to open an investigation against Vilaplana for perjury. For now, she also ruled out summoning her to testify again. This will remain the case, at least, until further information emerges that contradicts her testimony.