Probable Cause Found but Not on Both Charges

⚖️ 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗 — 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗢𝗡 𝗕𝗢𝗧𝗛 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘𝗦

On Tuesday, August 11, 2026, Judge Isander J. Rivera Morales of the Caguas Court of First Instance found probable cause for trial against Oscar Andrés Serrano Rivera on one of the two charges he faced in the case of Armando A. Rodríguez Rodríguez.

He found cause under 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟰.𝟬𝟮(𝗰) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, for leaving the scene of an accident in which a person was killed. However, he found 𝗻𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 under 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟱.𝟬𝟳(𝗰), related to having caused the accident through negligent and reckless driving.

From the bench, according to press coverage, the judge stated:

"Without a doubt, this is a tragedy. But there are more doubts than answers about how the accident occurred."

❓ 𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗗𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗪𝗢 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗥𝗨𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗦?

Because they are different charges that require proving different elements. Establishing that the vehicle and its driver were involved in a fatal accident and subsequently fled the scene is one thing. Proving how the driver was operating the vehicle before the impact — and whether that conduct meets the elements required by Article 5.07(c) — is another.

The no-cause ruling does not mean the judge concluded that Serrano Rivera did not drive negligently, nor does it amount to an acquittal. It means the judge determined that the evidence presented at this stage did not meet the probable cause standard required to send that particular charge to trial.

And that raises a valid question: given that a preliminary hearing is a filter — not the trial itself — was there enough evidence to allow that issue to move forward and be fully evaluated at trial?

🏛️ 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗦𝗔𝗬𝗦 𝗬𝗘𝗦

The prosecution does not agree with the judge's conclusion. Prosecutor Dennis Soto Fantauzzi requested reconsideration in open court, but the judge held firm.

The Department of Justice made its position clear in its official press release issued after the hearing: it requested an appellate preliminary hearing "based on its belief that the evidence required to prove that offense at trial was presented."

Justice also described the presentation of evidence as broad, developed over several months, and including highly specialized testimonial and forensic proof. The statement also maintained that Armando died as a direct result of the severe trauma caused by Serrano Rivera.

That is the disagreement another judge will now have to examine. Rivera Morales found no probable cause under Article 5.07(c). The prosecution maintains it presented sufficient evidence for that charge to go to trial.

🔬 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗗

This was not a brief preliminary hearing. Over the course of several months, witnesses testified and evidence was presented that included DNA analysis, surveillance camera footage, toll records, digital evidence, cell phone data, and expert forensic testimony.

Precisely because of the volume and nature of that evidence, the judge's statement that there are "more doubts than answers about how the accident occurred" carries particular weight.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝗱. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝟱.𝟬𝟳(𝗰) 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹.

The appellate preliminary hearing may help us understand that better.

💔 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗔𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥'𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

After the ruling, Segismundo Rodríguez, Armando's father, published a deeply personal message about what he experienced during the hearing. He said he was particularly affected by the defense's arguments about the speed at which a person could die from an impact, and by arguments that, as he understood them in court, attributed responsibility to his son.

Rodríguez wrote that hearing those arguments "hit him like a bomb" and defended his right to express what he feels as a father. He also made clear that his message was a personal release and not a technical intervention in the judicial process.

His post does not replace the official court transcript, nor does it make his interpretation evidence in the case. But it does allow us to understand the human weight of a hearing in which, alongside the evidence, the conduct of the victim himself was publicly debated.

"I am writing with my heart broken."

📋 𝗔 𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗗

There are two public facts that I consider relevant to document, precisely because this is an ongoing case file.

Isander J. Rivera Morales originally entered the judiciary as a municipal judge during the administration of Luis Fortuño. Subsequently, in December 2017, then-Governor 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗼 𝗥𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹ó 𝗡𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗲𝘀 renominated him for a new term as a municipal judge of the Court of First Instance, a nomination that went through the constitutional process of advice and consent of the Senate.

Separately, Telemundo Puerto Rico has publicly identified Oscar Andrés Serrano Rivera as the nephew of 𝗕𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗶𝘇 𝗥𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹ó, former First Lady and wife of Ricardo Rosselló.

These are documented facts. On their own, they do not demonstrate influence, favoritism, or conflict of interest, and Karaya does not assert that this historical relationship had any bearing on the judicial ruling of August 11.

But documenting an institutional connection is not the same as making an accusation. Reporting on it does not mean concluding that there was interference. 𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

⏭️ 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗪

The no-cause ruling on Article 5.07(c) does not necessarily end that charge. The prosecution requested an appellate preliminary hearing, where another judge will evaluate whether probable cause exists, and the Office of the District Attorney has indicated it will present additional evidence.

In the meantime, Serrano Rivera already faces trial on the charge for which probable cause was found.

The official Department of Justice statement sets the 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝟮𝟲 and 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟮, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲.

The August 11 ruling did not close this case. It divided it. Now we will watch what happens with the second charge when the prosecution returns before the appellate court.

We will keep following this case file.

𝗞𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘆𝗮

📂 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗢 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗙𝗜𝗟𝗘

We have not been following this case since yesterday. Karaya Boricua has an open Case File for Armando A. Rodríguez Rodríguez, where we have documented the investigation and the judicial process through a timeline organized by date, from the night of December 15, 2025 through the hearings held over these months.

There you can find what happened at each stage, which witnesses testified, what evidence was presented, the arguments of the prosecution and defense, and the rulings that have marked the process along the way.

With the August 11 decision, a new stage begins. The Case File will continue to be updated as the appellate preliminary hearing, the arraignment, and eventually the trial unfold.

🔗 karayaboricua.com/en/armandito-rodriguez

𝘚𝘪 𝘦𝘴𝘵á𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘺𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘳𝘢 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦 @𝘒𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘉𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘢, 𝘺 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘥𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘴 𝘱á𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴, 𝘢𝘭𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘮ó 𝘭𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘳𝘢 𝘴𝘂𝘺𝘰. 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘺𝘢 𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘥𝘰 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴.

#CasoArmandito #ArmandoRodriguez #PR52

Karaya Boricua

From Puerto Rico, with a voice of my own. Sharing only what adds value.

Contact

Únete a mi lista

karayaboricua@gmail.com

© 2026. All rights reserved.

This site contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Te suscribes si quieres. Te sales cuando quieras. Cero drama, cero spam.