The Provincial Court of Madrid has made a key decision in the case between Antonio David Flores and María Patiño. The court has rejected the appeal filed by Rocío Carrasco's ex-husband against the journalist. The ruling confirms Patiño's acquittal for an alleged offense of insult and slander.
The judges have concluded that the presenter's statements are protected by freedom of expression. According to the ruling, Patiño didn't intend to defame or damage the complainant's honor. In addition, the content addressed had a clear informational interest due to Antonio David's media context.
The case began over statements in which María Patiño claimed that Antonio David was identified as the person who posted signs in Málaga labeling him as an alleged abuser. Although these statements turned out to be inaccurate, the judge has considered that there was no malicious intent or intent to insult. According to the ruling, Patiño was mistaken in recounting the facts, but her error doesn't reach the criminal threshold required for a conviction for serious slander or insult.
The judge has already spoken, but this isn't over for Antonio David and María Patiño
Antonio David's defense demanded a financial penalty of more than €147,000 in fines, an additional compensation of €120,000, and the reading of the conviction on television. However, neither the judge of first instance nor now the Provincial Court have found grounds to grant these requests. The Public Prosecutor's Office, from the beginning of the proceedings, supported the communicator's acquittal, understanding that there was neither sufficient evidence nor harmful intent in her words.
The ruling insists that the right to honor can't automatically prevail over freedom of expression, especially when it comes to public figures. Antonio David Flores, due to his media exposure, enjoys reduced protection compared to anonymous individuals, as the court has recalled. In addition, it is emphasized that the content broadcast had a legitimate general interest, given the public debate surrounding his figure for years.
The court has clarified that freedom of expression doesn't protect only true information, but also opinions or incorrect statements if there is no intent to lie. This is also established by the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights, which sets very clear limits for an expression to be considered criminal. In this case, the court has judged that the informational context and the public trajectory of the person mentioned are key to understanding the exoneration.
Justice backs Patiño while Antonio David studies his next move
In her reasoning, the presiding judge has pointed out that Patiño may have been reckless, but she didn't act with malice. In her view, there was no deliberate intent to damage the complainant's honor nor was there a false accusation made with full awareness. Rather, it was an incorrect journalistic interpretation within a television social chronicle segment, with all the nuances that entails.
The Provincial Court's ruling therefore confirms the sentence previously handed down by Criminal Court No. 08 of Madrid, which had also acquitted María Patiño. The ruling, although not yet final, strengthens the protection of freedom of expression in cases involving controversial media figures. Meanwhile, Antonio David Flores has five days to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
This judicial decision represents another setback for the former civil guard in his attempt to stop what he considers a media smear campaign. For now, the courts have determined that, although questionable or even erroneous, María Patiño's words didn't cross the line into criminality. The debate over the boundaries between information, opinion, and defamation remains open, but the courts have spoken clearly this time.