1 3713517571857711477

Initial Hearing of Case 194 2026

Opening of the Audience

• The recording begins with the announcement of the initial hearing for case number 194 2026, presided over by Judge Germán García Rey Retarde at 6:33 AM on February 12, 2016.

• The judge declares the audience open and requests identification from all present parties.

Identification of Participants

• Elizabeth Cano Méndez, an agent of the Public Ministry, introduces herself with her professional credentials and contact information for notifications.

• José Ancelmo Torivio Sánchez appears as a legal advisor, providing his professional identification details and institutional email for notifications.

Victim's Representation

• Ángela de Yanira Moncada Camacho is identified as the victim; she provides her email address for notifications.

• Ricardo Codas Morales identifies himself as part of the defense team, sharing his professional credentials and contact information.

Legal Representation Confirmation

• César Omar Sánchez Jiménez confirms his presence alongside Ángel Fernando Rodríguez Figueroa, stating he is well-informed about the case.

• All participants are confirmed present with their respective identifications verified by official documents.

Verification of Credentials

• The judge reviews various official identifications presented by participants to ensure authenticity and proper representation in court proceedings.

• Issues arise regarding one participant's credential visibility; further verification is required due to document damage.

Rights Awareness and Legal Counsel Appointment

• The judge asks victim Ángela if she understands her rights through her legal advisor. She affirms this understanding.

• José Anzelmo Toribio Sánchez is formally appointed as Ángela’s legal representative after accepting his role in accordance with Article 110 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legal Proceedings for Ángel Fernando Rodríguez Figueroa

Initial Procedural Steps

• The victim must remain present to provide necessary information for the case records.

• Ángel Fernando Rodríguez Figueroa confirms his name and acknowledges understanding his rights through his legal representatives.

• The appointed lawyers, Ricardo Cuevas Morales and César Omar Sánchez Jiménez, confirm their acceptance of the role as defense attorneys.

Legal Framework and Charges

• The procedural act begins slightly late due to a prior urgent hearing; notification methods for involved parties are established.

• The prosecution requests the court to classify the detention of Rodríguez Figueroa as legal based on constitutional provisions and relevant articles from the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Charges include robbery with aggravating factors of physical and moral violence against victim Ángela de Yanira Moncado Camacho, citing specific articles from the Penal Code.

Incident Description

• The accused was apprehended under circumstances indicating immediate danger, supported by direct identification from the victim.

• On February 6, 2026, at approximately 10:50 PM, while riding her bicycle in Tultepec, Camacho was targeted by Rodríguez Figueroa who also rode a bicycle.

Assault Details

• As Camacho sought assistance at a pharmacy for a family member's medical needs, she encountered Rodríguez Figueroa who blocked her path.

• During an altercation where he physically assaulted her, he brandished a black pistol demanding her belongings.

Theft and Pursuit

• After stealing cash (500 pesos) and a Motorola Moto G5 phone from Camacho, he fled on his green bicycle while she called for help.

• Following the incident, Camacho alerted nearby police officers who were conducting patrol duties in response to high crime rates in that area.

Police Response

• Officers José Manuel Molinero Rodríguez and Juan Fernando Carraro Martínez responded promptly after being signaled by Camacho about her assailant's description.

• They pursued Rodríguez Figueroa based on detailed descriptions provided by the victim regarding his appearance during the attack.

Incident Overview and Arrest Details

Description of the Incident

• The victim, identified as Ángela de Ylanira Moncada Camacho, was approached by a suspect who threatened her with a firearm and stole money from her. This occurred near the Tellehualco Mexibus station.

• Upon being confronted by law enforcement, the suspect was found in possession of a black replica firearm and a 500 peso bill that the victim recognized as hers.

Arrest Procedure

• The suspect, Ángel Fernando Rodríguez Figueroa, was informed of his arrest based on direct identification by the victim and possession of stolen items. He was immediately taken to social representation offices for processing.

• A report was filed with Plataforma México regarding the arrest, including testimonies from police officers involved in the incident: José Manuel Molinero Rodríguez and Juan Fernando Carraro Martínez. Both corroborated details of the event.

Evidence Collected

• Key evidence includes:

• Victim's interview confirming details of the crime.

• A homologated police report dated February 6 detailing how the suspect was apprehended.

• A sketch of the crime scene along with inspections conducted at various locations related to the incident (e.g., weapon, cash, bicycle).

Medical Examination

• The victim underwent a medical examination revealing non-life-threatening injuries that would heal within two weeks; specifically noted were abrasions on her right knee measuring 2x2 cm. This examination took place shortly after the incident on February 6 around 22:50 hours.

Timeline of Events

Chronology of Actions Taken

• The suspect was arrested at approximately 23:00 on February 6.

• He was formally presented to authorities at around 21:13 on February 8, adhering to constitutional timelines for detention procedures. The prosecution requested legal qualification for this detention based on solid evidence against him.

Defense Arguments

Challenges to Prosecution's Claims

• The defense argued against all points raised by the prosecution, claiming procedural errors during arrest and questioning whether sufficient evidence existed at this stage.

• They highlighted discrepancies in timing between when events occurred (22:50) versus when he allegedly was detained (23:00), suggesting inconsistencies in law enforcement narratives about his actions leading up to his arrest.

Critique of Evidence Handling

• Concerns were raised regarding delays in recording detentions and inaccuracies in documentation related to time stamps within official records compared to what had been reported by law enforcement officials during proceedings. This included issues with national detention registry entries not matching those provided during court discussions.

Legal Arguments Regarding Detention Procedures

Discrepancies in Detention Timing

• The defense highlights a 30-minute discrepancy between the detention record and the National Registry of Detentions, raising concerns about the treatment of the detained individual.

• It is emphasized that the National Registry of Detentions aims to prevent forced disappearances and torture, as stated in Article 2 of the relevant law.

Legal Framework for Arrests

• The law specifies that immediate registration is required for various types of detentions, including those made in flagrant cases or under urgent circumstances. This raises questions about compliance with legal standards during this specific arrest.

• The defense argues that the prosecution's interpretation of Article 146 does not align with established legal definitions regarding when an arrest can be deemed lawful. Specifically, it challenges whether there was sufficient evidence at the time of arrest.

Prosecution's Response

• The prosecution counters by asserting that their actions were justified under Article 146, noting that if a suspect is identified by a victim or found with evidence related to a crime, it validates their detention. They dispute claims regarding timing discrepancies presented by the defense.

• They clarify that according to their records, both the date and time of detention are consistent with official documentation, challenging any claims made about inconsistencies in timing.

Defense's Position on Legal Compliance

• The defense insists that discrepancies in timing undermine the legality of the detention process and question what occurred during those missing minutes—arguing this could indicate potential violations of rights during custody.

• They assert that while ensuring no forced disappearance occurs is crucial, it does not absolve responsibility from law enforcement if procedural laws are violated during an arrest. Thus, they argue for reevaluation based on these points.

Conclusion on Legal Standards

• Both parties present contrasting interpretations regarding adherence to legal standards surrounding detentions; however, they agree on one point: proper documentation and timely registration are critical components in validating arrests under Mexican law as outlined in Article 17 concerning immediate recording requirements for detentions.

Legal Proceedings and Detention Validity

Fundamental Rights Protection in Legal Processes

• The speaker emphasizes the importance of guaranteeing fundamental rights during legal processes, highlighting potential issues arising from discrepancies in timing related to a detention.

• The role of the Public Ministry agent is clarified, stressing the need for verification of both prosecution and defense evidence regarding the legality of the detention.

Legal Framework and Detention Verification

• Reference to Article 146, Section B, indicates that legal standards must be met concerning detentions, supported by laws such as the National Registry of Detentions.

• The discussion includes subjective interpretations versus objective data from the National Registry of Detentions, which shows a significant time discrepancy in reported events.

Objective Evidence vs. Subjective Interpretation

• A critical point is made about how subjective views can influence perceptions of legality; however, objective facts from official records are paramount for determining lawful detainment.

• A request is made to present electronic evidence to illustrate discrepancies in detention times without violating fundamental rights.

Justification for Timing Discrepancies

• The Public Ministry argues that a 30-minute delay between arrest and presentation was justified due to logistical factors involving transport between municipalities.

• It is noted that distances between locations can account for delays; thus, timing should be evaluated within context rather than isolated.

Challenges to Legal Arguments Presented

• Concerns are raised about inconsistencies in statements made by the Public Ministry regarding detention times, suggesting attempts at misrepresentation or confusion.

• The speaker asserts that conflicting narratives undermine legal validity based on constitutional principles outlined in Articles 1 and 14.