Santo Domingo.-For the third consecutive time, the Judiciary has prevented the private accusation filed by communicator Manolo Ozuna against Esmelin Santiago Matías García (Alofoke) from even advancing to the merits hearing phase, by declaring it inadmissible once again.
With this latest decision, an unusual procedural sequence is consolidated: three consecutive judicial decisions, issued by different jurisdictional bodies, all unfavorable to Ozuna’s claim. To date, no court has considered that the accusation meets the minimum requirements demanded by law to open a trial.
The first setback occurred on November 25, 2025, when the Ninth Chamber of the Criminal Court of the Court of First Instance of the National District declared the private criminal accusation inadmissible, concluding that it did not meet legal requirements, as it presented deficiencies in the individualization of the defendant and in the precise formulation of the charges.
Far from that decision remaining final, Ozuna filed an appeal. However, on March 17, 2026, the Second Chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeals of the National District rejected the appeal in its entirety and confirmed the inadmissibility, validating the criterion that the accusation did not satisfy the procedural requirements necessary for its admission.
We recommend reading: Manolo Ozuna loses again: Court of Appeal rejects his appeal and confirms inadmissibility of the case against Alofoke
More Read
Despite this, the plaintiff chose to file a new private accusation based on the same facts. That new process was heard by the Fourth Chamber of the Criminal Court of the Court of First Instance of the National District, which again declared the action inadmissible, once again accepting objections regarding the failure to comply with the essential legal requirements for the process to proceed to the trial stage.
The result is conclusive: an inadmissibility in the first instance, a confirmation by the Court of Appeal, and a new inadmissibility following the reintroduction of the same controversy. Three consecutive judicial decisions, three procedural setbacks for the same claim, and, to date, no possibility that the case has been heard on its merits.
The technical defense of Esmelin Santiago Matías García has been composed of lawyers Manuel Alejandro Bordas Nina, Franklyn Abreu Ovalle, and Winston Ezequiel Báez Ovalle, who consistently maintained the exceptions and incidents that led to the successive decisions of inadmissibility, raising, among other aspects, the non-observance of the legal requirements of the accusation, the violation of the principle of non bis in idem, and the lack of a precise formulation of the charges.
More Read
The chronology of the case reflects that, after three consecutive adverse judicial decisions, the private prosecution has still not managed to pass the admissibility examination, an essential stage for a court to be able to assess the merits of the charges. This procedural history makes this case an infrequent sequence within the criminal jurisdiction and evidences that, so far, the claim of the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the minimum requirements established by criminal procedural legislation.
