A year after the collapse of the Jet Set Club roof, the case remains in the instructional phase as parties debate which evidence will be admitted for a potential trial. Private plaintiffs are currently seeking to upgrade the legal classification to “homicide,” arguing that a technical report and testimony from former employee Gregorio Adames provide sufficient proof to justify the stricter charge.
During the 20 April 2026 hearing of the JetSet case, relatives of the late Eduardo Grullon and Johanna Rodriguez requested First Instruction Court of the National District Raymundo Mejia change the charge against siblings Antonio and Maribel Espaillat to voluntary homicide that would enable a harsher penalty. The prosecutors so far have charged the siblings with involuntary murder, a charge that carries a maximum of two years in jail.
Legal representatives for the family of Johanna Rodríguez, who perished alongside her husband, Eduardo Grullón, in the nightclub roof collapse, have formalized a separate individual criminal complaint against the establishment’s owners. The filing, submitted independently of the Public Ministry’s case, aims to intensify the legal pressure and representation for the victims as the judicial process unfolds.
The tragedy, which occurred shortly after midnight on 8 April 2025, remains one of the deadliest structural failures in recent history. The collapse of the venue’s roof during a Rubby Perez merengue concert resulted in 236 fatalities and left over 180 people injured.
The lawsuit targets siblings Antonio and Maribel Espaillat, both free on bail. While the Public Ministry currently maintains a charge of involuntary manslaughter, the family’s attorneys are petitioning the court to reclassify the incident as voluntary homicide (intentional or willful negligence). Other affected parties have chosen to adhere to the Public Ministry’s primary indictment.
Key developments in the preliminary hearing
The court must now evaluate the Rodríguez family’s request to change the legal charges before deciding whether to proceed to a full trial.
The private complaint seeks to ensure a deeper probe into the administrative responsibilities of the nightclub’s management in the roof collapse. The technical report that is part of the prosecution file establishes major negligence on behalf of the management.
Another effort to upgrade the accusation was dismissed by judge Mejia during the hearing on 20 April. The legal counsel for Gregorio Adames, led by attorney Plino Piña, argued that his client’s testimony is vital for reclassifying the case, as sought by the relatives of Rodriguez and Guerrero. The defense seeks to upgrade the charge from involuntary manslaughter to homicide, arguing that the specific circumstances of the event warrant a more severe legal standing.
Piña cited Article 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP) in an attempt to include Adames as a witness in the early stage. However, the court rejected the request, maintaining that the preliminary phase is designated for debating existing evidence and legal qualifications rather than introducing new live testimony.
The presiding judge clarified that for Adames to speak before a formal trial, the defense must file for an Anticipo de Pruebas (Advance Production of Evidence). He explained that under Dominican law, this is an exceptional procedural mechanism used when:
• There is a high risk that evidence or testimony may disappear or deteriorate.
• It is impossible to reproduce the testimony at a later date during the merits trial.
• It is necessary to safeguard critical evidence to guarantee the right to defense.
Read more in Spanish:
Somos Pueblo
Diario Libre
Noticias SIN
Noticias SIN
Listin Diario
N Digital
22 April 2026