The mayor of Móstoles summoned to testify on October 9 as investigated for sexual and workplace harassment of the former PP councilwoman

The mayor of Móstoles from the Popular Party, Manuel Bautista, has been summoned on October 9 as an investigated party in the case stemming from a complaint filed against him by a former councilwoman for sexual and workplace harassment. This was decided by the judge of plaza 2 of the Section of Violence against Women of the Local Court of Instance, who, in turn, has summoned five witnesses, as reported by 'El País'.

Likewise, the 'EFE' agency has reported that among the witnesses are the complainant's lawyer, the also former councilman Raúl Gallego Parrondo, who resigned from his councilor position last March after showing solidarity with his colleague, and the former head of Communication of the City Council, David Zamorano.

The former PP councilwoman of Móstoles ratified on June 29 the complaint filed against the mayor, detailing to the investigating judge that there were three alleged sexual propositions to which she was subjected and whose rejection resulted in alleged workplace harassment. The complaint is directed against the mayor and against the party itself for alleged crimes of sexual harassment, workplace harassment, injuries, coercion, disclosure of secrets, and assault against moral integrity.

The complainant's lawyer, Antonio Suárez-Valdés, described his client's appearance as "an absolutely credible, coherent, and very appropriate statement," and highlighted that the former councilwoman "was able to illustrate to her honor how the mayor of Móstoles made sexual propositions to her on three different occasions, in a short period of time." According to the former councilwoman, she rejected three proposals, and as a result of that rejection, a process of alleged workplace harassment began.

Bautista requests nullity

Manuel Bautista has filed an appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid against the judge's decision that confirmed the admission of the complaint. In this regard, his defense requests the nullity of the order that dismissed the appeal for reform and asks that the admission of the complaint be rendered ineffective, understanding that the resolution does not specify which facts can be attributed to the mayor, nor what are the indications that would justify the continuation of the procedure. The lawyer maintains that the court merely makes generic statements about the possible criminal relevance of the reported facts, without explaining how the elements of the investigated crimes concur.

The appeal also questions the court's appreciation of sufficient evidence to continue with the investigation. The defense states that the specific facts imputed to Bautista nor the proceedings carried out that allow sustaining the existence of a criminal offense are not specified. Another of the main arguments of the appeal focuses on the validity of the complaint. In addition, the defense also maintains that it was filed without the special power of attorney required by article 277 of the Criminal Procedure Law and argues that said defect was incurable, so the court should never have admitted it for processing.