Newspaper Mail | Noise of information between PRF and PM would have motivated action that ended in the death of sub-lieutenant

Prosecution witnesses were heard on Tuesday. Credit: Arisson Marinho/CORREIO

The trial of 13 military police officers involved in the disastrous action that ended in the death of sub-lieutenant Alberto Alves dos Santos, 51 years old, in Itajuípe, began this Tuesday (18th), with the testimony of a witness from the Federal Highway Police (PRF). An agent, identified only as França, explained how a communication noise between the PRF and the PMs would have directed the accused to the Pousada Itajuípe, where everything happened.

On September 27, 2022, the Secretariat of Public Security (SSP-BA) reported that the PMs were looking for the criminal André Márcio Jesus. Known as Buiú, he had left the Lauro de Freitas Penitentiary Complex on the same day, at 1:30 pm, while he was on temporary leave, wearing an electronic anklet. Around 2:30 pm, Buiú broke his ankle bracelet while on the BR-324, near Candeias.

At that time, the vehicles of sub-lieutenant Alves and sergeant D’Almeida – another victim in the case – passed by the place where the criminal got rid of the ankle bracelet, which placed the vehicles as possible means of escape. “The fact that the Duster and the Renegade passed by the place where he broke his ankle bracelet at the same time was a criterion for considering the possibility of him being in one of these vehicles”, said França.

In a statement, the agent claimed to have received the indication of the vehicles as suspects by the PRF intelligence sector already during the night of that day. Based on this information and the suspicion that Buiú was on his way to Porto Seguro, the military police were informed of the possibility that the criminal was with accomplices in the region, circulating in the cars indicated by the intelligence sector.

The agent, however, stressed that the information provided by the PRF were “possibilities to be investigated” and not concrete statements of the connection between the vehicles and Buiú. The defense of the police, however, used prints of the communication between the two police forces to maintain that the indications were transmitted as statements and, therefore, the action was conducted in that way.

Warrant Officer Alves was part of the security team of the then candidate ACM Neto (União Brasil) and was in Itajuípe for a campaign event that would take place the following day in Coaraci.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP), through the prosecution team, reinforced, however, that the deliberate invasion, breaking into rooms and shooting by the police would not be under legal conditions even if the individuals in the inn were, in fact, the wanted criminals.

França was the first of eight prosecution witnesses who would be heard throughout this Tuesday. Among them are Sergeant D’Almeida, another PM who was at the inn and a local employee. At the end of this hearing, the defense will have five days to present the list of witnesses who will be summoned by the Military Audit Court, in Bonfim, where the hearing takes place.

The MP-BA prosecutor’s office expects the trial to last at least four more days due to the number of witnesses and defendants (13) who will be questioned before the judge. The scheduling of the next hearing will depend on the time the Court will need to subpoena the witnesses.

The first day of hearing also served to read in full the accusation made by the MP-BA against the police. In it, the prosecution stated that the accused were divided into three tactical cells at the inn to go to the rooms of sub-lieutenant Alves, sergeant D’Almeida and Captain David, another PM who was at the inn on the day of the investigation.

Four of the officers were indicted for forcibly breaking into David’s room, aggressively subduing him and forcing him to the floor. Another five, identified only as Josicley, Igor, Saimon, Marcos Vinícius and Jamily, are defendants for having killed sub-lieutenant Alves. Among them, Josicley and Igor are identified as responsible for the shots fired at the victim, while Saimon, Marcos Vinícius and Jamily provided tactical support.

The medical report attached to the complaint indicated that Alves was shot at a distance and also at close range when he was in a defensive position and not an attacking position, which suggests that the victim was executed when he was on the ground. In expertise, it was found that the firearm shots only happened from outside to inside the apartment, which refutes the possibility of Alves’ reaction.

The police officers identified as Everton, Dilton Mário, José Benevuto and Leonardo were identified as responsible for breaking into and invading the room where Sergeant D’Almeida was staying, who was shot five times in the action, but survived.

According to the MP, those responsible for the shots were Everton and Dilton Mário, who also hit colleagues from the previous tactical group. [Jamily e Saimon]. The group is accused of attempted murder, since in addition to injuring Sergeant D’Almeida, it took 32 minutes and 40 seconds to offer help and send him to a hospital.

Due to the complaint, Fabiane Almeida, a criminal lawyer and president of the subsection of Military Law in Camaçari, explains that the penalty for some of the police officers can reach 30 years. “In this case, they respond for crimes against life. In the Military Penal Code, they respond in Article 205, which can result in a sentence of 12 to 30 years of imprisonment, with the qualifiers due to the death of the sub-lieutenant. Not to mention the attempted murder”, he says.

Specialist in judgments of this type, she points out that, despite being framed in the Military Penal Code, the penalty also materializes in the civil sphere. “A conviction in the military sphere also becomes final in civil cases. If there was a conviction in the military, this decision can also be used for reparation as a process for moral damages, for example”, recalls the lawyer.

It also adds that, even if the commander, whether general or battalion, did not give the order for the operation, the State may be the subject of an investigation, since it is an operation on its behalf.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News

Editor's Pick