By The Star Staff
Popular Democratic Party Electoral Commissioner Karla Angleró González confirmed earlier this week that an incident between officials that took place at the electoral operations center of the State Elections Commission (SEC) is being investigated by the appropriate authorities.
An agent from the Criminal Investigation Corps (CIC) was assigned to the case and after a conversation with Angleró, he stated that there was no cause for concern for the PDP official, Emmanuel Gómez, involved in the situation.
“In the area where Gómez was working there were about 100 people on balance doing their work, none of them working alone,” Angleró said in a press conference late on Sunday. “The white envelopes with ballots are not opened, only the yellow envelope is opened and the ID is taken out. If there are no ballots there, how can they charge that he took a ballot to the bathroom? Also, in this area and in the hallways there are cameras and in none of the cameras is Gómez identified with any ballot.”
The PDP official said that according to what they told her, it was the chairperson of the SEC who took the ballot out of the trash and they also indicated that the ballot was marked with a vote for a PDP candidate.
“Someone in their right mind can think that a PDP candidate is going to tear up a PDP ballot,” Angleró said. “I wonder about these inconsistencies that clearly seek to point out an official of ours without foundation.”
Angleró noted that the events began between the two officials on Election Day, Nov. 5, when Gómez, the PDP official, allegedly filed a complaint against an individual from the New Progressive Party (NPP) for violating the Electoral Code in a voting center.
“The investigation must include the previous events between the two officials since everything points to an unfounded complaint with the sole purpose of diluting the previous one,” Angleró said. “The account given by the NPP official is what we call in law a stereotyped testimony, which is one that is limited to establishing the basic elements of a crime, but omits essential details.”
Comments