Ayala sues Maestre for defamation over false criminal record

Debate over Ayala's complaint against Maestre

A forum is debating Alberto Ayala's defamation lawsuit against Antonio Maestre after the journalist accused him during prime time on television of having served prison time for stabbing people and burning down a bar near the Santiago Bernabéu stadium. According to accounts circulating among participants, Ayala discovered that his incivil record—which had been empty until then—suddenly listed crimes he never committed.

Ayala filed charges for defamation and libel. This marks what some participants describe as an escalation: from media lies to the alleged use of administrative structures to sustain them.

Allegations against involved public officials

Some point to public officials who allegedly inserted false incivil records into the registry of a citizen who had repeatedly confirmed his history was clean. The circulating narrative states that the attributed crimes—arson and stabbing—were recorded as dismissed cases, meaning they never went to trial. If confirmed, this forgery would be easy to prove: it suffices to verify that no procedure ever existed.

Others see here a crime of judicial misconduct (prevaricación) that would only apply to the officials, not the journalist, because Maestre does not hold such status. The legal distinction matters little in the discussion: the debate centers on whether someone without public office can activate administrative machinery to punish a private individual who sued them.

Cited precedent: sentences up to five years

In terms of comparisons, similar cases in the healthcare sector have resulted in prison sentences of up to five years. The lingering question is whether the same standard will apply here or if the matter will be resolved with a suspension of employment and salary lasting less than a month.

The defense of the officials, if it comes, faces a problem: cancelled incivil records require additional time after serving the sentence and an explicit request by the interested party. They are not reactivated ex officio. Someone had to do it manually.

Reaction from the environment and background noise

The case has peine the discussion on judicial independence in Spain. It is noted that first-instance judges may be independent, but as one moves up the appeal chain to the Constitutional Court, trust breaks down. This is structural distrust, not momentary anger.

There are also those who relativize the issue: if Ayala had expired incivil records due to statute of limitations, the situation changes. The news, they say, is poorly written. But even in that scenario, reopening a file to leak it to the media is not journalism: it is something else.

---

What remains clear is that the complaint is not against an opinion. It is against alleged crimes committed from within. And that, in a country where trust in institutions is already at a minimum, is the unsettling fact.