The murder of the young businessman from Choele Choel, Lucas Valentini Gaspar, remained in the memory of the population of Choele Choel. The victim was part of a well-known family in the town. On Thursday, the judges of the Provincial Impeachment Court (TIP), Miguel Ángel Cardella, Rita Custet Llambí and Carlos Mussi, They rejected an appeal from the defense of Luis Alberto Marinao, who was convicted of the crime.
The defense challenged the amount of 19 years in prison that a trial court in Roca imposed on Marinao on February 6.
By rejecting the proposal, the sentence against Marinao for homicide during the merchant’s robbery, aggravated by the participation of a minor, remained in place, along with another previous sentence that had been imposed on him for a qualified robbery.
The TIP judges recalled thatThe accused admitted his responsibility in the murder of Valentini Gaspar, in an abbreviated trial that was held in December.
Marinao and a 15-year-old teenager broke in through a window at dawn on September 18, 2022, at the home located in Avellaneda and Urquiza, in Choele Choel, where Valentini Gaspar was sleeping with his partner. The assailants entered the bedroom and threatened the victims with knives, while demanding money.
Marinao took the woman to the dining room with a knife at her throat and there he seized about 200,000 pesos. Valentini struggled with the minor in the bedroom, but Marinao appeared and stabbed him several times. The woman shot with a firearm that was in the house, owned by her partner. Two projectiles hit the minor.
The young woman went out into the street to ask for help. The criminals killed Valentini and took the money and cell phones. Valentini Gaspar died from serious injuries. The perpetrators of the robbery were arrested hours later.
Marinao’s defenders challenged the amount of the unified sentence as disproportionate. They requested that this sentence be revoked and that the TIP order a new single sentence of 14 years and 3 months in prison. The prosecution and the complaint rejected the proposal.
The TIP judges noted that the defense did not provide ““no element, incorporated in the case to demonstrate that there is arbitrariness in the calculation to determine the amount of the penalty.”
They said that the challenge against the sentence “does not demonstrate a judicial error, as the defense’s expression is based on a disagreement that fails to indicate the imbalance of the power of the trial Court in imposing the unification of sentences, which is why it should be rejected.”
