Provincial Court acquits Marcelino Cerdeña over postal voting in Betancuria

The court has not found it proven that former Betancuria mayor Marcelino Cerdeña Ruiz and an official who served as the Town Council’s legal adviser acted together to breach the procedure for postal voting in the municipal elections held on 26 May 2019. The Sixth Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has overturned the earlier conviction and acquitted both of the electoral offence with which they had been charged.

The ruling, dated 18 September 2026 and seen by La Voz de Fuerteventura, upholds appeals by the defence against the decision issued on 13 October 2025 by the criminal court in Puerto del Rosario.

In its findings of fact, the Provincial Court says it has not been established that the defendants, “acting in agreement”, carried out “acts wholly contrary to the proper processing of postal votes laid down by electoral law”.

Nor does it find it proven that they filled in applications without the voters’ consent and involvement, or that the official took possession of electoral documents addressed to the affected residents before they cast their votes.

“There is not the slightest indication of an agreement”

The court cites the lack of evidence of coordinated action to benefit Unidos por Betancuria, the ticket headed by Cerdeña at the time, as one of the grounds for acquittal.

“There is not the slightest indication of an agreement,” the court says. It explains that assuming such an arrangement existed because the candidate might have benefited from the official’s alleged actions is not enough to support a conviction.

The ruling says that this hypothesis had to “be accompanied by evidence” and that, as no such evidence was presented, it became “a presumption against the accused, which cannot be accepted in the judgment”.

Help with filling in applications

Another key point in the ruling is the distinction between helping a resident complete the forms and substituting for them in exercising their right to vote.

The court cites testimony from voters who received help filling in applications but were present and completed the process themselves. In contrast with the reasoning of the judgment under appeal, which stressed that applications had to be made in person to the point of excluding such assistance, the Provincial Court says: “It is permissible to help fill in the details.”

The court also highlights the evidence given by the head of the post office, who said that neither defendant collected electoral documents there on behalf of third parties and that “all applicants did so in person at the Office”. The postwoman also denied giving the official envelopes intended for other people.

The ruling notes that, under the procedure applicable to those elections, a third party could deliver the envelope containing the vote to the post office. As the court explains, “at that time, this was an act that could be delegated”. Only the voter could choose the ballot paper and place it in the envelope.

The party headquarters address

The Provincial Court also examines the fact that the headquarters of Unidos por Betancuria was listed on several applications as the address for receiving electoral documents.

The prosecution argued that this could have made it possible to know when the envelopes arrived and influence the decisions of older people or those with impaired mental faculties.

The court says the hypothesis warranted a response but concludes that it was not supported by evidence. The ruling refers to “facts or hypotheses that were not only unsupported by any evidence, but were even contradicted by witness testimony”.

To support that argument, the court explains, it would have been necessary to establish coordination between the defendants and postal staff that would have enabled them to be present when the envelopes were delivered and influence the vote. The court concludes that “this evidence has not been presented”.

The postwoman said that, if she found the party headquarters closed, she had been instructed to take the envelopes to their recipients’ homes.

The Provincial Court also addresses an incident recounted by Coalición Canaria candidates, according to whom the official had taken unopened electoral documents from a home. The ruling says the postwoman denied handing them over and stresses that “these events were not the subject of the charges”.

The judgment overturns the earlier conviction and acquits both defendants “of all criminal liability for the electoral offence with which they had been charged”. The costs of both proceedings are waived. The ruling states that an appeal on points of law may be brought only in the cases provided for by law.