Chapter 15 - Roberto’s Trial
Roberto’s trial did not center on the slap.
He had already pleaded guilty separately to hospital assault after his text to Miguel and Santiago’s recording made denial pointless.
For that, he received a custodial sentence under one year, suspended partly due first violent conviction? But financial trial could later. Let's say he was convicted/pleaded and sentencing coordinated. We can place:
He admitted assault and coercive conduct; sentencing deferred to combine? We'll say the court imposed a shorter custodial term to be served concurrent partly with later sentence, plus no-contact. Fine.
The larger trial concerned financial fraud and identity misuse.
Four guarantees.
Fake email.
Impersonation.
Ratification plan.
Witnesses.
The prosecution did not call me first.
They called lenders.
That mattered.
Banco Metropolitano officer testified:
“We required Valeria’s consent.”
“Did you receive valid direct consent?”
“No.”
“Why extend?”
“We relied on documentation later determined fraudulent.”
Then SUV finance.
Their compliance director admitted weak process.
No pretending institutions blameless.
Then forensic examiner.
Signatures copied/traced.
Then IT specialist.
Email forwarding rule from parents’ home.
Fake email recovery tied Patricia.
Then Laura Méndez.
She admitted tracing one signature.
Defense attacked.
“You committed forgery.”
“I copied because Don Roberto told me Valeria approved.”
“You want immunity.”
“I was not promised immunity.”
Prosecutors had discretion but no formal immunity? Better she had cooperation agreement not to prosecute minor role. Defense exploited.
Then Arturo Salgado, former CFO.
He said:
“I told Roberto we needed Valeria directly.”
“What did he say?”
“She already agreed.”
“Did you verify?”
“No.”
His failure.
Then Fernanda testified from custody.
That broke Roberto.
She described impersonation call.
Her father told her underlying consent existed.
Defense:
“So you believed Valeria consented?”
“At first.”
“When did you know she didn't?”
“When Dad told me not to tell her.”
Then text.
If Vale finds out she'll kill us.
Hard.
Then Patricia testified under plea agreement.
She admitted helping.
Defense:
“You want reduce sentence.”
“I already received sentence.”
Could still credits.
Then:
“Your husband forced?”
“No.”
“Did he threaten you?”
“No.”
Important.
Patricia was not Beatrice.
She was participant.
Then me.
I testified.
Did I sign?
No.
Did I authorize?
No.
Had I ever loaned business money?
Yes.
450,000 once.
Repayment partial.
Defense seized.
“So family had history of Valeria supporting company.”
“Yes.”
“Your father could reasonably believe you would help.”
“He could ask.”
Then:
“You trusted him with documents.”
“Yes.”
“You gave power authorization once.”
“For one apartment sale.”
“Could he believe it continued?”
“It had specific transaction and expired.”
Documents.
Then:
“Were you financially harmed if guarantees never ultimately collected?”
“My credit was affected. I paid legal costs. I was exposed to claims.”
Then:
“Did Navarro pay?”
“No.”
That ended richest-husband narrative.
Then hospital assault relevant to coercive pattern? Court allowed limited, maybe separate conviction could show attempt to pressure around same debts. The folder left in room.
Then Santiago recording.
Roberto:
Just tell your husband to buy your sister the luxury SUV right now.
Then:
You owe your sister everything after all this family sacrificed.
Then slap sound.
Then my statement.
The jury/bench? Mexico criminal proceedings not US-style jury generally. Since setting Mexico, we should avoid "jury". Better a panel/judge oral trial. Important! We have been using court and judge, not jury so far. In Mexico, criminal trials are before judges, not juries generally. Since it's fiction and user asked Mexico, we should keep "trial court/judges" not jury. We earlier said prosecutors, fine. Let's correct current: "The trial judges" evaluate. Great.
Roberto testified.
Against advice.
“I built everything for my daughters.”
Then:
“I never believed Valeria would deny company help.”
“Did she sign?”
“I authorized on her behalf.”
“Did you have legal power?”
“I am her father.”
The prosecutor paused.
“She was twenty-six.”
“Yes.”
“Did you have power of attorney?”
“No.”
Then:
“So what legal authority?”
Roberto stared.
“Family.”
There it was.
Not law.
Family.
Then final judgment weeks later.
Guilty on multiple fraud/identity-related counts.
Guilty on falsified commercial documents.
Some charges combined.
Not guilty on one count where prosecution could not prove he personally directed a specific equipment lease signature.
Accurate.
Then sentencing later.
First, restitution/loss calculation.
No full 9.17m loss because lenders recovered from company and guarantees invalidated.
Actual financial harm to lenders from fraudulent credit extension calculated around 4.8m after repayments/collateral, plus administrative loss.
Valeria's personal harm lower.
Sentencing reflects.
Then Roberto finally looked frightened.
Not when company lost.
Not when I stopped calls.
May you like
When judge said prison was likely measured in years.
For first time, patriarchy had no room where title father mattered.
