Jet Set Case: Judge Reclassifies Charges Against Espaillat Siblings

The criminal case stemming from the April 2025 collapse of the Jet Set nightclub in Santo Domingo took a significant procedural turn on October 16, 2026, when Judge Franny González Castillo changed the legal classification of the charges against siblings Antonio and Maribel Espaillat from involuntary homicide to voluntary homicide through eventual intent, also covering voluntary bodily injury.

The judge, who presided over the case at the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the National District, accepted a request brought by representatives of victims and their families. The decision followed months of proceedings over the collapse, which killed 236 people and injured more than 180 during a concert by merengue singer Rubby Pérez on April 8, 2025.

González said the evidence presented during the proceedings indicated that the tragedy could have been prevented and that warnings about the building’s condition had existed before the collapse.

Judge cites prior warnings about the roof

In explaining the ruling, González said the defendants had knowledge of the roof’s deterioration and had received documented information and warnings indicating a serious risk. He argued that the circumstances presented in court went beyond a simple failure to maintain the building or an accidental breach of a duty of care.

The judge cited testimony, expert assessments, audiovisual material and other evidence presented by prosecutors. In his assessment, the evidence supported the prosecution’s account that the danger had been known and that the nightclub remained open despite the reported risks.

“It could have been prevented, there were warnings, and it should not have happened,” the magistrate said while explaining his decision.

The ruling reflects the judge’s assessment of the evidence at this stage of the proceedings. It does not constitute a final determination of the criminal responsibility of either defendant.

What eventual intent means in the case

Eventual intent, known in Spanish as dolo eventual, concerns situations in which a person is alleged to have foreseen the possibility of a harmful outcome and nevertheless continued acting while accepting that risk. It differs from involuntary homicide, which generally involves a fatal outcome attributed to negligence or a failure to exercise the required care rather than acceptance of the risk of that outcome.

By changing the legal classification, the judge accepted the argument that the conduct described in the prosecution’s case should be examined under a more serious category of criminal offenses. The underlying factual allegations were not expanded by the decision; the change concerned the legal characterization of those facts.

The new classification carries a reported potential prison term of three to 20 years, depending on the offenses established and the applicable legal provisions. The final outcome will depend on the proceedings before the competent court and the evidence assessed during the trial.

Case moves to a three-judge panel

The change in classification also affected which court can hear the case. Because the potential penalties exceed the jurisdiction of the single-judge chamber that had been handling the proceedings, González ordered the file transferred to the leadership of the National District Criminal Court for assignment to a collegiate tribunal through a judicial draw.

The judge stated that the existing proceedings would be interrupted and the trial would have to begin again before the newly assigned panel. The new court will hear the case from the beginning, rather than simply continue from the point reached before the legal classification changed.

The decision also means that the new panel will have to consider the evidence and arguments within the framework of the revised charges. The defense will retain the opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s allegations and present its position before the competent tribunal.

A request previously rejected during the preliminary phase

The request to classify the alleged offenses as intentional rather than involuntary had been raised earlier in the case. During the preliminary phase, Judge Raymundo Mejía rejected a similar request when deciding whether the defendants should stand trial.

That earlier ruling maintained the involuntary-homicide classification. The October 16 decision by González was made during the subsequent trial proceedings, following the presentation and assessment of evidence in court.

The distinction between the two stages is important: the latest ruling changes the legal framework under which the case will be tried, but it does not itself establish guilt or impose a sentence.

The April 2025 Jet Set tragedy

The case concerns the collapse of the roof at Jet Set, a well-known nightclub in Santo Domingo, on April 8, 2025. The structure came down during a performance by Rubby Pérez, killing the singer and 235 other people and leaving more than 180 injured, according to the reported toll.

The disaster prompted a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the building’s condition, the warnings allegedly issued before the event and the decisions that allowed the venue to operate. The proceedings against Antonio and Maribel Espaillat seek to determine whether their conduct gives rise to criminal liability.

The ruling on October 16 marks a major procedural change in that effort. The next phase will take place before a collegiate court, where the revised charges and the evidence will be examined in proceedings that must begin anew.