Sandro has no children: the Court confirmed this and rejected Sandra Borda’s request

With a unanimous vote the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires ruled final point of a very long judicial process that began almost eighteen years agoissuing a final ruling and ratifying it Sandra Junior (Bordauntil she changed her birth name to that of her mother, Marta Junior) She is not the daughter of Roberto Sánchez, that is, of Sandro, the idol..

On Friday 23 February, judges Hilda Kogan, Sergio Gabriel Torres, Daniel Fernando Soria and Luis Esteban Genoud confirmed the first and second degree sentence and the opinion of the Attorney General Julio Conte Grand in case C. 124.254, “ BORDA SANDRA EDIT C/ BORDA CARLOS ENRIQUE AND OTHERS WITHOUT MATTER TO CLASSIFY.”

Just notified, Gustavo Frasquet, lawyer of Olga Garaventa de Sanchezwidow of the idol, spoke with Clarion:

“The trial judge had already justified it correctly the genetic test that determines, with a probability of 99.9, the certainty that she was not his daughter. But it’s also there a previous DNA, taken by Roberto when he was alive, also tested negative and who joined the cause.

The Supreme Court of Justice rejected the appeals that Borda had proposed with the intention of continuing to discuss the question of filiation, but the judges’ argument is lapidary: she is not Roberto Sánchez’s daughter”, confirmed the lawyer.

The phrase inside

The members of the Court started from the two questions that emerged from the presentation made by Borda’s lawyers: Is the extraordinary action for annulment founded? And if not, is it a case of inapplicability of the law?

The answers are part of the declaration, reflected in the eight pages of the sentence, where a meticulous detail of what was done is provided, stresses that “a legal absurdity occurs” AND questions, among other things, the unfoundedness of the “appellant”the tones used and the requests, including, a new exhumation of Roberto Sánchez.

“Mrs. SEB (Sandra Edith Borda) filed an action to contest the filiation against Mr. CEB (Carlos Enrique Borda) and, in the same act, an action to recognize the filiation against Mr. RS (Roberto Sánchez) .”

“In the detailed trial he stated that in 1965 his mother MBJ (Marta Borda) met RS, popularly known as “S.” (Sandro), and together they began a hidden relationship that lasted several years, despite the categorical refusal of the maternal family. Some time later, MB met CEB with whom she formalized a relationship and eventually got married. However, meetings with the popular singer continued to take place.”

“In this context – briefly illustrated here – the appellant stated that on 7 June 1968 her half-sister AAB was born and that, three months later, her mother MB became pregnant again, which led to the couple’s relationship with her beginning to deteriorate” .

“The foundations of the contested decision (the first instance sentence) were based on the evaluation of the expert report, on the results obtained from the genetic DNA test carried out on the cadaveric remains of the accused and on the blood sample of the actor, as well as in the testimonial evidence. By virtue of them, the a quo considered the absence of the father/daughter bond claimed by SEJ (ex B.) between her and whoever was RS in life”.

“In turn, Section III of the Second Civil and Commercial Appellate Section of the aforementioned judicial department confirmed the contested sentence.”

“To reach this conclusion, the Court of Appeal issued provisions to better provide for the violated rights and to examine the assessment carried out at first instance, culminating in the comparison of the cadaveric remains promptly acquired and “the blood sample preserved by CentraLab, whose result indicated that both samples are not mutually exclusive, as they correspond to the same genetic material.”

“In summary, the appellant’s mere disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal does not demonstrate that the respective assessment of the contested judge is absurd.”

“In this case, although founded by the Chamber, an unquestionable response was received on the basis of the expert opinion which supported the original expert opinion carried out and on which the criticisms and doubts of the appellant weighed. Therefore, if this is not the object of an attack, the attempted remedy becomes ineffective in overturning what was decided.”

“Although the interested party questioned and raised throughout the trial its doubts about the RS blood sample stored at CentraLab since 5 December 2005, as well as about the collection of samples from the deceased’s cadaveric remains, -which served as an argument to offer the evidence whose presumption by the Court of Appeal is questioned here – the truth is that it should have refuted – and did not do so – in a clear and precise manner the main argument of the ruling in crisis, referring to the fact that The outcome of the genetic DNA test carried out on both samples definitively concludes that it is the same person, strengthening the scientific evidence on which the first instance sentence was based which indicated the absence of a biological link between the actor and the cause This result destroys the questions and doubts raised by the appellant throughout the trial and renders the remainder of the evidence presented inconclusive.”

“Due to the above agreement, in accordance with the ruling of the Attorney General, The extraordinary appeals of nullity and inapplicability of the law attempted are rejected, with costs borne by the losing appellant.

The third negative sentence, voted unanimously (adding to the also negative opinion of the Attorney General) in the highest sphere of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires leaves no doubt about the evidence presented, and ratifies the most important one: the DNA which, in all forms carried out, established the non-existence of the biological link between Sandra Borda and Roberto Sánchez. Furthermore, Borda will have to bear the costs generated by the now rejected lawsuit.

Word of Olga, Sandro’s wife

When asked about the sentence, Olga Garaventa, in an exclusive dialogue with Clarionexpressed:

“I have always had respect for justice and I was always at his disposal. I am convinced that God puts things back in their place and, sooner or later, the truth comes to light“.

And he closed: “I am calm, because I have always proceeded correctly and, above all, because I know my husband can rest in peace now.”.

The cause, step by step

Year 2006. The case is initiated at the Mediation Center of the Bar Association of Lomas de Zamora. Then it continues at the family court no. 3 of that city.

When Sandro receives the notification postcard at his home in Banfield offers, through his lawyer Roberto Beninati, to pay for the private DNA study that Sandra Borda carried out on 13 April 2007. The result is negative (she has always assured that she does not have children) and the complaint is concluded.

January 8, 2010. Four days after the death of her husband, Olga Garaventa de Sánchez receives a judicial notice prohibiting the cremation of his body (two days earlier his body had been buried in Gloriam cemetery, Longchamps).

August 3, 2010. The file is open at the Civil and Commercial Court n. 20 of La Plata.

October 2010. Sandra Borda appears on television for the first time.

October 5, 2015. By order of Judge Miriam B. Celle Sandro’s body is exhumed. The report of the expert María Atilia Gómez of the Expert Advice Office of La Plata is strong: “The observed results are incompatible with the existence of a father/daughter link between the samples labeled as belonging to whoever was Roberto Sánchez and Borda Sandra Edit”.

December 26, 2016. The final ruling is from judge Federico Martínez: “We reject the lawsuit that Sandra Edit Junior (ex Borda) initiated against Roberto Sánchez – her successors for the recognition of extramarital affiliation. Sandra Junior, changes lawyers and appeals the sentence.

October 2018. Section III of the Second Court of Appeals of the Judicial Department of La Plata leaves room for a new DNA comparison considering the samples extracted during the exhumation and also the DNA that had been carried out privately and that had not been accepted as evidence in the first place degree.

December 5, 2019. Section III confirms the first instance sentence. Sandra Borda changes lawyers again and appeals to the Provincial High Court.

February 14, 2022. The Attorney General expresses his opinion: “I believe that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires should reject both attempted remedies.”

February 23, 2024. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires issues a final ruling: She is not Sandro’s daughter.