2 3714260803711403693

Opening of the Hearing

• The session resumes with the presence of the prosecution and identification of the prosecutor, Luis Rafael Matel Jacán.

• Matel presents his credentials, including a certified copy of his professional license in law.

• Identification confirmed through official documents, including military service records.

Formal Opening of Proceedings

• The hearing is formally opened after confirming all parties are present.

• Defense confirms compliance with procedural requirements before proceeding to evidence presentation.

Presentation of Evidence by Defense

• Defense begins presenting evidence, including a verbatim disk and USB containing relevant information.

• Interview details provided for Brenda María Fuentes Colín, including personal information and consent for video recordings.

Video Evidence Submission

• A 32 GB USB containing video evidence is submitted; it includes footage from February 6, 2026.

• Video shows the arrest sequence involving the defendant on a motorcycle at 20:41 hours.

Details from Video Footage

• Footage captures police interaction with the defendant and duration of detention prior to transport.

• The defendant was held for approximately 20 minutes before being transported by state police.

Incident Overview

• At 21:07, an individual is transferred approximately 40 meters to a patrol vehicle by two officers.

• Additional officers arrive around 21:46, including state police and municipal police from Tultitlán.

• Information was requested regarding officer Piña Martínez Martina for evidence collection.

Documentation and Evidence

• A formal document (DSCYV/ CCJ/ ME DM/ 860/ 2026) dated February 12, 2026, includes signatures from legal authorities.

• The document contains a copy of the work ID for officer Piña Martínez Martina, confirming her role in security.

• An attendance list dated February 6, 2026, indicates officer's assignment details.

Geolocation and Patrol Details

• Officer Piña's radio number SC468 matches the patrol seen in video footage presented to the Public Ministry.

• Another document confirms the geolocation of patrol SC468 related to the ongoing investigation.

Legal Proceedings and Testimonies

• A report from February 7, 2026, discusses issues with obtaining fingerprints during initial detention.

• The defense emphasizes the need for proper forensic procedures that were not followed initially.

Conclusion of Evidence Submission

• The defense acknowledges missing reports from state police regarding incident ME 837 A5.

• The defense formally withdraws certain requests due to lack of evidence received at this stage.

Discussion on Video Evidence

• There are discrepancies noted regarding timestamps on video evidence presented by the defense.

• Ongoing discussions about incorporating additional data into legal proceedings continue.

Evidence and Testimonies in Legal Proceedings

Key Points

• The Public Ministry agent presents two police interviews as evidence, one by José Manuel Molinero Rodríguez who signed the custody chain.

• Juan Fernando Carranco Martínez's identification is questioned due to lack of loyalty obligations.

• Request for dismissal of Carranco Martínez's interview based on Article 217 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure, citing absence of proper identification.

Investigation Validity

• The interview with Carranco Martínez is deemed null due to lack of identification, impacting its validity in legal proceedings.

• Molinero’s account includes a different timeline and mentions a green bicycle relevant to the case.

• Concerns raised about the absence of fingerprint analysis on a supposed weapon linked to the incident.

Evidence Discrepancies

• Lack of digital residue checks on the alleged weapon raises doubts about its connection to the accused.

• Medical certificates do not support claims against the accused; discrepancies noted in police reports regarding evidence collection.

• Description of crime scene lacks mention of surveillance cameras that could provide crucial evidence.

Report Limitations

• Official report fails to include significant details about surveillance footage available at the arrest location.

• The investigation report appears incomplete or biased, lacking critical information for case clarity.

• Testimony from Carla Paola, sister of victim, does not substantiate claims against the accused.

Weapon Analysis

• Ballistics report identifies weapon as plastic but does not link it directly to the accused's actions during the incident.

• Only victim's interview and IPH exist as evidence; however, inconsistencies in IPH timing raise further questions.

Transcript Summary Investigation and Legal Proceedings

Key Points from the Transcript

• Discussion of discrepancies in time zones affecting the investigation, with a specific date and time mentioned (February 6, 2026, at 23:05).

• Acknowledgment of previous issues being resolved but highlighting inconsistencies in video evidence presented by the Public Ministry.

• Mention of missing signatures on important documents (IPH), questioning their legitimacy for use in court proceedings.

Investigation Quality Concerns

• Critique of the investigation's thoroughness, noting presence of police vehicles and National Guard personnel without timely video evidence collection.

• Confirmation that photographs match video evidence; however, absence of camera data raises concerns about reliability.

• Reference to legal requirements for linking individuals to crimes based on sufficient investigative background as per national code.

Evidence and Procedural Issues

• Discrepancies noted between reported times by the Public Ministry and actual video timestamps indicating earlier events.

• Opportunity missed by investigators to collect crucial video footage from specified locations during initial inquiries.

• Request made for dismissal of charges due to lack of sufficient evidence linking the accused to any crime.

Clarifications Requested

• The prosecution seeks clarification regarding missing signatures and discrepancies in police reports related to timings.

• Emphasis on reviewing documentation where names are listed but lacking necessary signatures or details about detentions.

• Further discussion on missing information regarding timestamps within police reports impacting case validity.

Identification of First Respondent

• The first respondent is identified by a work credential with folio number 21008412 issued by the State of Mexico.

• There is a formal error in not including the identification details, despite the defense's reference to the police report.

• Other documents confirm the signature of the first respondent, validating their involvement in the case.

Timing and Interview Issues

• The timing of events raises questions; interviews may have been conducted at different times than reported.

• An interview with Brenda María Fuentes Colín was conducted in Mexico City on February 12, 2026.

• Discrepancies exist regarding where and when interviews were held, affecting credibility.

Chain of Custody Concerns

• A proper chain of custody is necessary for evidence validity; issues arise from how witness statements are handled.

• The witness did not claim expertise in forensic matters related to video extraction, raising doubts about evidence handling.

• Testimony from Brenda María Fuentes Colín is crucial for establishing evidence credibility.

Dactyloscopy and Evidence Collection

• Dactyloscopy could not be performed due to refusal from the accused to provide fingerprints without legal counsel present.

• Proper procedures should have been followed during evidence collection involving fingerprints and weapon confrontation.

• Video evidence shows discrepancies regarding locations and timings relevant to the incident.

Observations on Police Response

• Video footage indicates multiple units responded to an incident involving an accused individual.

• The presence of various police units suggests that knowledge of events was broader than just one officer's account.

Evidence and Testimony Analysis

Bicycle Evidence

• The bicycle linked to the accused was found at the crime scene, confirmed by state police during the securing process.

Video Recording Discussion

• Defense claims that video recordings from the crime scene were not provided; police did not find any cameras present.

Witness Testimony on Financial Capacity

• A witness, sister of the victim, discusses her financial capacity related to a monetary amount relevant to the case.

Relevance of Information Sources

• The information sources discussed are pertinent for linking evidence in this case and may support or refute claims made.

Digital Evidence Standards

• For digital evidence to be valid, it must be obtained legally and follow a proper chain of custody as per legal standards.

Legal Implications of Illicit Evidence

• If evidence is obtained unlawfully, it may be deemed inadmissible due to violation of fundamental rights.

Chain of Custody Importance

• Proper documentation and chain of custody are essential for maintaining the integrity of digital evidence presented in court.

Request for Exclusion of Video Evidence

• The defense requests that video evidence be excluded due to lack of adherence to chain of custody protocols.

Defense's Position on Identification

• The defense argues that identification requirements were not met regarding an individual involved in the investigation process.

Issues with Video Transfer

• Concerns raised about delays in receiving video footage from authorities; previous communication about this issue noted.

Investigation Quality Concerns

• Questions raised about the thoroughness and legality of investigations conducted by law enforcement regarding camera presence.

Rights During Sample Collection

• Emphasis on defendant's right to have legal representation during sample collection processes highlighted by defense counsel.

Time Discrepancies Noted

• Defense points out significant time discrepancies related to events occurring at the crime scene.

Legal Proceedings Overview

Defense Argument

• The defense argues that the investigation is flawed and requests the release of the accused.

• Emphasizes that the prosecution must follow legal procedures as outlined in the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

Judicial Resolution

• The judge confirms that a video recording will document the resolution process.

• The situation of Ángel Fernando Rodríguez Figueroa regarding robbery charges is addressed.

Legal Framework

• Discusses constitutional articles relevant to detention and legal proceedings.

• Details specific articles from the penal code related to aggravated robbery.

Competence and Jurisdiction

• Confirms jurisdictional authority over the case based on territorial and procedural grounds.

• Highlights requirements for judicial detentions under Mexican law, including time limits.

Case Specifics

• Notes that no evidence has been presented to exclude responsibility for the alleged crime.

• States that an indictment was made on February 10, 2026, with respect to legal rights of the accused.

Incident Description

• Describes how Ángel Fernando allegedly committed robbery using a replica firearm on February 6, 2026.

• Details victim's account during the incident involving theft while searching for medication.

Witness Interaction

• Victim was approached by Ángel Fernando who demanded belongings while brandishing a weapon.

• Victim reported incident to police after witnessing patrol officers nearby.

Legal Proceedings Overview

Evidence and Testimonies

• The accused was apprehended, impacting the protected legal interest of individuals' property.

• The defense presented evidence including video recordings and documents related to Brenda María Fuentes Colín's interview.

Victim's Testimony

• The judge considers the victim's testimony crucial as she is the sole witness, needing corroboration from other evidence.

• Issues arise regarding Juan Fernando Carranco Martínez’s identification and lack of signature on police reports, violating procedural codes.

Chain of Custody Concerns

• Defense claims lack of chain of custody; however, it is the authority's responsibility to maintain this record.

• Missing signatures and formalities in police reports do not undermine the validity of ministerial actions.

Video Evidence Validity

• Current video evidence lacks conviction due to discrepancies in timelines between video content and testimonies.

• Technical validation through expert analysis is necessary to ensure integrity against alterations or destruction.

Corroborating Evidence

• The judge questions if the victim's account aligns with police reports and medical certificates indicating injuries consistent with her narrative.

• Carla Paola Moncada Camacho serves as a circumstantial witness confirming details about the victim’s bicycle.

Defense Arguments Assessment

• Although defense arguments highlight various procedural issues, they can be rectified under legal provisions without dismissing charges against the accused.

• Elements required for establishing criminal conduct are deemed satisfied based on existing evidence linking actions to outcomes.

Consideration of Aggravating Circumstances

• Aggravating factors include moral violence through intimidation; items resembling firearms were involved but not actual weapons.

• Physical violence is acknowledged due to injuries sustained by the victim during the incident.

Case Summary and Legal Proceedings

Evidence Against the Accused

• The victim clearly identifies the accused as the perpetrator of theft involving moral and physical violence.

• No evidence has been presented to disprove the accusations against the accused, confirming their involvement in the crime.

Legal Framework and Charges

• The accused is charged under Article 11, Section C of the Penal Code for committing a deliberate act against protected legal interests.

• The crime is classified as aggravated robbery due to injuries inflicted during its commission.

Capacity and Responsibility of the Accused

• At the time of the incident, the accused had full awareness and understanding of their actions, with no evidence suggesting incapacity.

Judicial Decisions and Notifications

• A formal indictment was issued against Ángel Fernando Rodríguez Figuroa for aggravated robbery on February 14, 2026.

• Notification sent to prison authorities regarding charges; parties have three days to appeal if dissatisfied.

Cautionary Measures and Investigation Timeline

• Existing precautionary measures remain in place throughout proceedings; communicated to relevant authorities.

Investigation Period Proposal

• The prosecution proposes a two-month investigation period due to case complexity; all parties agree.

Closure of Investigation Period

• Investigation closure set for April 10, 2026; all parties can submit relevant evidence during this time.

Potential for Early Resolution

• Case may be resolved through an expedited procedure if requirements are met per national procedural code.

Final Authorizations and Compliance Reminders

• Copies of recordings authorized for parties involved; access granted under administrative conditions.

Compliance with Cautionary Measures

• Non-compliance with imposed measures could lead to revocation of freedom; defense counsel will provide necessary information.