This is a real case in which lawyer Sandra Márquez represented the accused party. Certain details, including photographs, have been modified to protect the privacy of those involved.
The case arose from a routine traffic control operation in the Ciutat Vella district of Valencia. During the inspection, officers of the Local Police noticed a resident parking permit displayed on the vehicle’s windscreen that appeared suspicious. Upon closer examination, they confirmed that it was merely an A4 paper photocopy of the original permit, which was supposed to be a smaller, double-sided plastic sticker with a special adhesive.
The driver, Amparo, openly admitted to the police that she had printed a copy of a permit she had found on the Internet in order to park in her local area. However, she insisted that she had never considered this to be a serious offence. Amparo expressed genuine surprise when informed that she could be committing the criminal offence of document forgery. Despite the absence of any actual or potential harm, criminal proceedings were initiated against her for the alleged falsification of an official document.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: ABSENCE OF DOCUMENT FORGERY DUE TO INNOCUOUS FALSIFICATION
In this case, we successfully secured the dismissal of the charges. The key to the defence lay in the analysis of the essential elements of the offence of document forgery, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Spanish Supreme Court.
- Objective or material element:
The offence requires an alteration of the truth through one of the recognised forms of forgery under the law. However, in this instance, the “document” in question bore no resemblance to an authentic one. The photocopy lacked the dimensions, materials, and characteristics of the original permit and, as such, had no capacity to mislead third parties or compromise legal certainty.
- Subjective element or fraudulent intent:
For the offence to exist, there must be an intention to alter reality with the purpose of causing harm. Amparo’s actions, based on her genuine belief that she was not engaging in any serious wrongdoing, negated the existence of fraudulent intent. This was corroborated by the testimony of the police officer himself.
- Material unlawfulness:
The Spanish Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a mere formal irregularity is not punishable unless it affects legal certainty. Amparo’s photocopy had no capacity to deceive nor did it pose any real risk, thereby ruling out any criminal liability.
PRECEDENTS IN CASE LAW
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that not every documentary irregularity constitutes the offence of forgery. Judgments such as STS 1704/2003 of 11 December, as well as rulings from 1928, 1968, and 1970, have reaffirmed that an innocuous falsification—one that does not compromise legal certainty—cannot be subject to criminal sanction.
CASE RESOLUTION: DISMISSAL
Sandra Márquez successfully argued for the dismissal of the case, demonstrating that the alleged forgery did not meet the legal requirements of the offence, given that the imitation was crude and devoid of legal effect.
This case underscores the importance of a rigorous legal analysis in criminal law. Not every irregular act constitutes a criminal offence, and the principle of minimal criminal intervention demands that only those falsifications that genuinely threaten legal certainty be subject to prosecution. In short, this was a legal victory grounded in the strict observance of the principles of legality and material unlawfulness.