Argos, the dog of Dalas: adoption, judicial victory and criminal conviction to prison for María Rubio Sánchez (Miare)

2015: Daniel José Santomé Lemus adopted Argos

The story begins in 2015, not in the later controversies. Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) decided to adopt Argos, a two-month-old galgo puppy who had been rescued along with his eight siblings and mother. The video I've adopted a galgo, published that same year, preserves the beginning of cohabitation and shows Argos at Dalas Review's home just two days after adoption.

The video explains that the mother and her nine puppies were found abandoned in a forest when the puppies were around three weeks old. The mother was severely weakened from continuing to feed them. Daniel José Santomé Lemus took responsibility for adopting Argos, paid the corresponding expenses and registered the dog in his own name. Argos was never jointly owned with María Rubio (who has an active criminal record as of the date of writing), although Daniel adopted him while they were a couple. During those early days, the puppy learned his name and how to walk, sit and relieve himself outside.

The recording also documents the link from the beginning: Dalas describes Argos' calm, affectionate and intelligent character, awareness of abandonment of greyhounds and uses video visibility to promote adoption of the mother and other animals. This 2015 piece is a contemporary and pre-trial evidence.

• Argos was two months old and had been at Daniel José Santome Lemus' home for two days when the video was recorded.
• Dalas decided to adopt him, completed the process with the animal shelter, paid the expenses and registered the dog in his own name.
• The video identifies Argos' origin, his rescue along with eight siblings and the situation of his mother.
• The publication actively promoted the adoption of greyhounds and helped spread the work of protectors.

2015–2016: temporary care after the break-up and refusal to return him

During the relationship, Argos lived with Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas) and María Rubio Sánchez (Miare). After the break-up in November 2015, María asked to keep the dog temporarily because she felt lonely. Dalas accepted that provisional arrangement while he was touring to sign his first bestselling book, since the alternative was to leave Argos in boarding care. Months later, when Dalas requested his return, María refused to hand him over.

Public chronology denies that Argos had only been a negligible period with Daniel. The first adoption video dates from May 2015 and there are later images, including a February 2016 photo taken after the breakup, in which Dalas appears with Argos. Dalas had also expressed his intention to adopt a dog years earlier.

Before suing, Daniel José Santomé Lemus tried to find a friendly solution and proposed that both of them could maintain contact with Argos. The judicial route only began when the return ceased to be possible through private agreements and after the beginning of the first denunciations of Miare against Dalas, which Maria Rubio lost entirely and did not even reach trial, as they were all archived in first instance, while Dalas won all the denunciations against Miare, criminal and civil.

2017: Full victory of Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas) in the civil trial

Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) won the 2017 civil proceedings in full. The judgment upheld his claim, ordered Argos's return and required the opposing party, María Rubio Sánchez (Miare), to pay costs. The counterclaim against him was also rejected.

The case documents, explained in the three response videos from 2017, show that María Rubio Sánchez did not claim ownership of Argos in her counterclaim. She requested monetary amounts presented as expenses—meaning that she did not even seek ownership of Argos, but only money—yet those claims were rejected. Nor did she establish any title of ownership or possession superior to Daniel's.

Ownership did not depend on María being a minor when the dog was adopted. Daniel decided to adopt Argos, made the payments from his own accounts and cards, signed the documentation and was recorded as the owner. If the dog had belonged to María, he could have been registered through her legal representatives and transferred when she reached adulthood; no such transfer ever existed. A minor could also have had the dog registered in her name, but that did not happen because Argos belonged to Dalas, not María.

The judgment was not a decision based solely on formality. The court examined documents, testimonies and claims of both parties. Included are allegations of ill-treatment by a friend of Maria Rubio, who presented himself to say that "Dalas was afraid" and that "he beat Argos in front of him". When Dalas' lawyer asked him why he didn't do anything in front of those beatings, this friend said that "he was afraid of Dalas". To this response, Dalas' lawyer took out tweets from his account, where he wished Dalas dead and mocked him in various ways. Which not only shattered any credibility as a witness, but it also introduced complete inconsistency with the claim that he "was afraid of Dalas". Dalas won his action, the opposite claim was rejected and an express judicial obligation to surrender Argos remained.

• The claim of Daniel José Santome Lemus was assessed.
• The resolution ordered Argos to be returned.
• The other party was convicted of charges.
• The economic counterclaim of María Rubio Sánchez was rejected.
• Maria Rubio Sánchez was not recognized as having superior property or right of possession over Argos.

2017: the subsequent public campaign and the three documented responses

After losing the civil trial, María Rubio Sánchez posted a tearful video in which she publicly accused Daniel José Santomé Lemus of mistreating Argos and presented claims intended to discredit him. The video reached millions of views and triggered a massive campaign of insults, death threats and harassment against Dalas Review and his partner.

Dalas Review responded through three videos published in 2017. In them, he reconstructed the adoption, the temporary care arrangement, the attempted agreements, the judicial proceedings and the contradictions in the account circulated against him. He also displayed documents and explained why the screenshots did not prove the alleged offences.

Among the contradictions noted is a publication from October 2015 in which Maria herself explained that a neighbor had threatened to denounce an alleged mistreatment that did not exist. That material is pre-breakup and contradicts the subsequent allegation that Daniel abused Argos since he was a puppy. There is also a photograph of Daniel with the dog in February 2016, after the breakup and the period in which allegedly there was already abuse, in Miare's new home. If the dog abuse had existed, why allow Dalas to go into your house and take a picture of you with the animal? Obviously this was an excuse to create hatred against Dalas and as revenge.

The videos also explain that a notarial compulsion only certifies that the notary saw certain content; it does not make that content true or substitute for judicial assessment. The court assessed the whole of the evidence and ruled in favour of Daniel José Santome Lemus.

Dalas made it clear that his purpose was to recover Argos, not get money. Even after winning, he offered that Maria could see him through an intermediary and proposed withdrawing actions and videos to close the conflict. The answer was not the delivery of the dog, but the continuation of public exposure and non-compliance with the sentence. María Rubio spent the following years attending gossip programs, podcasts and news to speak badly of Dalas, being she is currently a criminal, with criminal background in force, sentenced to prison.

• The three responses from 2017 are fully linked on this page.
• The videos show the court documents and analyze the charges point by point.
• The 2015 audiovisual hemeroteca itself contradicts the retrospective allegation of abuse.
• Daniel offered access through an intermediary even after winning the trial.
• The threats and hate messages received by Dalas and his partner are shown within the responses.

2018: María Rubio Sánchez reported that Argos had "lost"

The civil verdict was solid and the delivery still did not take place. When the execution progressed to the point where the police had to go to retrieve the dog, María Rubio Sánchez presented in police departments alongside her mother (Antonia) a communication according to which Argos had been lost.

During the following months there was no public search campaign equivalent to what one would expect: María Rubio Sánchez completely publicly silenced Argos' "disappearance" for months, while posting random things in her network profiles, the "loss" of Argos did not seem to affect her at all, the dog for which she "so much wept", does not appear in the material shown a search video, a reward or a public mobilization of Maria to find Argos. Dalas, on the other hand, investigated for months in silence to avoid compromising clues and exhausted private and judicial avenues.

The reported disappearance prevented the execution of the delivery order. The subsequent finding of Argos with another name, other documentation and a different chip, coupled with the criminal conviction of María Rubio Sánchez to prison sentence for gross disobedience, demonstrates that the judicial obligation of return was not fulfilled.

2018: public search and $10,000 reward

After months of not being able to locate Argos, Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) published an urgent appeal and offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who managed to return it. He explained that he hadn't seen him for about two years, had exhausted the roads at his disposal and needed public collaboration to find him.

The video describes Argos as a grey-white, about 30kg galgo with unique spots and blue eyes. It shows photographs and videos that allowed them to recognize their marks, facilitates the chip number that was then in place and reproduces the court order for return. Dalas asked that any sightings be reported first to the police and then to him, and he pledged to move immediately to the scene.

In the subsequent update a printable poster was circulated and asked to be distributed in shops, bars, restaurants and mailboxes of Sant Joan Despí and its surroundings. Three people had reported sightings in the same area and were ready to testify. One of the sightings mentioned was dated September 21.

Dalas explained that he had reserved details to distinguish true clues from false information and not harm the investigation. He asked for photographs, videos, license plates and any evidence that would allow the police to request procedural steps. The reward, the posters, the massive appeal and the willingness to take the first available flight prove who was conducting a real and sustained search to recover Argos. Maria Rubio, for her part, said "Dalas was harassing her" for looking for her dog Argos.

• A public reward of $10,000 for the return of Argos.
• Downloaded poster for distribution in Sant Joan Despí and nearby areas.
• Physical description, photographs, videos and chips facilitated to identify him.
• Express request to call the police and keep evidence of each sighting.
• Three witnesses had located Argos in the same area at different dates.

The evidence exists and is shown in detail in the linked videos.

This case is not based on a back-up story. The linked videos contain the original recordings of the 2018 incident, photographic comparisons of Argos brands, adoption mail with its original name, reading and viewing of medical reports, snippets of the 112 call, complaints, veterinary documents, enforcement procedural steps and court rulings.

The evidence exists and appears within the videos themselves: it is not limited to an oral explanation. The images allow to follow the sequence of the encounter; documents allow to check dates, injuries, court decisions and veterinary status; and subsequent sentences confirm the central points about the dog's identity, the order not complied with and the prison sentence for María Rubio Sánchez.

• Record of Maria Rubio Sánchez's father running towards Lizy P., the hit happens and the phone falls to the ground.
• Photos of injuries and reading of Lizy P. and Renata's medical reports.
• Audio of the call from Daniel José Santome Lemus to 112 requesting police presence immediately after the incident.
• Comparative images of Argos' spots, proportions and physical features before and after its disappearance.
• Original adoption mail that credits Argos as being called Marlo before he was adopted.
• Documentation showing the dog reappeared with a different chip number and different veterinary documentation.
• Resolutions and judicial procedural steps confirming Argos' identity, the non-compliance with the delivery order and the criminal conviction to prison of María Rubio Sánchez.

The dog was reported missing and then reappeared with another chip.

After the order of return, María Rubio Sánchez falsely communicated in police departments that Argos had been lost. However, the dog later reappeared in Sant Joan Despí under another name, with a different chip number and veterinary documentation that attributed its ownership to someone else: His father.

The videos show the animal's front and rear photographs. The spots, curves, body proportions and unique features match. They also show the adoption mail that says that before being named Argos, the dog had been given the name Marlo. During the 2018 incident the name Marlos was used, a combination that referred directly to that previous name.

The police present did not declare that the animal was not Argos. He confirmed that the number of chips read did not match the one provided by Daniel José Santomé Lemus and indicated that he should denounce this discrepancy. Years later, the criminal trial confirmed judicially that the dog presented under another identity was Argos.

The 2018 meeting took place on a public road and was recorded

The Dalas Review group (Daniel José Santomé Lemus) did not enter any homes. The meeting took place in a Rambla, on the public road. The four went to record because the goal was to locate Argos, preserve the evidence and call the police to execute recovery through legal channels.

The recording shows Daniel José Santomé Lemus approaching with his hands in his pockets and Lizy P. filming from several metres away, while Renata, a friend of theirs, tells Antonia, María Rubio's mother, that the dog she is holding is Argos. The father of María Rubio Sánchez (Miare, who is a convicted criminal) crosses the space between those present, runs directly towards Lizy P. and strikes towards her face with a closed fist. The impact also knocks Lizy P.'s phone to the ground and breaks its case. The audio records the impact and the device falling.

Neighbors began to approach after the coup, drawn by the screams and subsequent forceze. That's why they didn't witness the incident. Although they began to position themselves in favor of the family of the criminal María Rubio Sánchez. The video preserves precisely the moment that occurred before the crowd formed.

Lizy P. suffered a cervical contusion and needed a collar

Lizy P. raised her arm to protect her face. The impact hit the arm and cervical area, caused the mobile to fall and caused a severe contusion in the neck. She went to the emergency room, got a medical part and later used a collar because the pain and movement limitation increased as the injury cooled.

The following video shows Lizy P. with the collar, plays the recorded sequence and explains the trajectory of the blow. It also documents that the assailant did more than just cover the camera with one hand: he walked several meters toward it and the impact was strong enough to pull the phone out and stop the recording. Maria Rubio's father later tried to say as an excuse that his goal was the mobile phone, which is totally impossible because the recording records the entire sleeve of her arm, so her hand went far beyond the mobile itself, and you never see her hand standing on the mobile phone. Besides, why would you want to avoid a recording on your cell phone if you weren't doing anything wrong? Later, Maria Rubio Sánchez's father was convicted in the first criminal trial (which was repeated) and in the second in the first sentence as well, although he was later withdrawn for a purely procedural matter. Maria Rubio Sánchez's father is currently facing another criminal procedure for the assault (puncture) against Lizy P, in the courts of Sant Feliu de Llobregat, pending a resolution still today (almost 8 years later).

The reduction came after the coup and without reprisals from Dalas Review (Daniel José Santomé Lemus)

A companion of Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) held Maria Rubio Sánchez's father immediately after the coup to prevent the aggression from continuing and keep him immobilized until police arrived. Due to the aggression of María Rubio Sánchez's father, they ended up falling to the ground. The recording and testimonies contained in the videos explain that he was not punched or kicked: he was held back by body weight, loosened his grip when he showed discomfort (and shouted he couldn't breathe, which is impossible, because if you can't breastfeed, you can's not scream either) and could get up and walk when authority arrived.

Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) did not hit anyone. He stayed out of the force, despite the fact that Maria Rubio Sánchez's father also tried to assault him, without succeeding. He called 112 and concentrated on asking for police presence. The audio of that call is included in the linked evidence and records how he communicates that his girlfriend had just been assaulted and that the dog subject to court proceedings was there.

Renata held Argos' belt and her injuries were also documented.

While the police were waiting, Renata held up the belt to prevent Argos from disappearing again. He explains in video that he did not grab or hit anyone: he held the strap because he knew he would try to disappear the dog again and communicated that he would hand over the dog to the police as soon as he arrived.

During that forcejeo he suffered injuries to the wrist, dorsal area, back and neck, as well as a human bite in the back that pierced a sweater and a shirt, caused by Antonia, mother of María Rubio Sánchez. The videos show the marks and read the medical part: erosion on the wrist, back contusions, a rounded injury compatible with bite with clearly marked teeth, fingerprints on the cervical area and pain from the jaw.

The ambulance examined Lizy P. and Renata on the spot. Renata immediately reported the bite to an agent and signed the assistance. This contemporary record of injuries is part of the documentary series shown. Maria Rubio Sánchez's mother (Antonia), then made a cross-demand saying that "he had been pulled out of his hair". This lady, unaware that Lizy P had re-recorded and was seen wearing a wool hat, made it totally impossible for her hair to be pulled if it was covered by a wool cap, while this lady (Antonia) was on Renata's back, making it completely visible that she was in the position of biting Renata in the back, but making it impossible for anyone to have "pulled her".

The 112 call and the group's behavior dismantles the version of an ambush.

Daniel José Santomé Lemus's group (Dalas Review) recorded from before the meeting, while the father of the criminal María Rubio Sánchez, assaulted the woman who was recording, repeatedly asked to wait for the police and it was he who called 112. Lizy P.'s complaint left it written that the purpose of being in Sant Joan Despí was to recover her partner's dog through police intervention.

The videos show the group surrounded by numerous neighbors as they continue to call for calm and police presence. Tickets were also kept for purchases made before the meeting, incompatible with the version that the entire displacement had been organized as an expedition to assault someone.

Recording the entire approach, immediately calling emergency services and staying on site until police arrive are actions consistent with the stated intention: documenting Argos' location and retrieving the dog through authority.

Argos recognized Daniel José Santome Lemus and remained quiet throughout the incident.

The images show Argos approaching Daniel José Santome Lemus directly and licking his hand. The dog passed between several people and agents, remained calm, didn't bark or attack anyone and was described by those present as the quietest animal in the entire scene.

That behavior contradicts the widespread version that Argos was especially aggressive toward men. Even in a situation of noise, tension and physical contact with strangers, the recordings do not show an aggressive reaction from the dog.

The CIVIL (and never criminal) conviction of Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) was for insult after the assault, not for defamation.

Contrary to what left-wing media say while misrepresenting this case, Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) was subsequently held liable only in CIVIL proceedings for the insulting expressions he directed at the father of María Rubio Sánchez (Miare, who is a convicted criminal). Dalas was not convicted of defamation, inventing the assault or falsely attributing facts to him. The decision sanctioned only the insults used; it did not declare the recorded sequence false or require Dalas Review to retract the facts or apologise for recounting them.

The order of events is essential. The insults did not appear spontaneously or precede the incident: Dalas (Daniel Santomé Lemus) pronounced them after seeing Maria Rubio Sánchez's father running several meters to attack Lizy P., a much smaller woman who was recording, with her hands occupied by the phone and without being assaulting or posing any threat. These facts, we repeat, are recorded and the recording unequivocally corroborates these facts. The blow knocked down Lizy P, caused documented cervical injuries and forced Lizy P. to go to the emergency room and use a collar.

Daniel verbally reacted after contemplating an assault on a defenseless, small woman who was also his partner. He did not hit Maria Rubio Sánchez's father, did not participate in the forcejeo and was the one who immediately called 112 to request police presence. To present his conviction for insult without explaining the assault he had just witnessed transforms a subsequent verbal reaction into seemingly gratuitous conduct and completely alters the chronology.

Maria Rubio Sánchez's mother, follows publicly with several left-wing journalists, who have written her various articles to distort what really happened. These events also sparked a huge uproar on social media, as people wondered how the law could defend an aggressor who had assaulted a woman simply for insulting him for his actions. Condemnation for the words used does not erase the video, medical reports, phone call or emergency call. Nor does it make the account of what happened a defamation. The law has not yet convicted Maria Rubio Sánchez's father of the assault, despite being charged, and the case still takes 8 years to wait for trial against this gentleman for the assault he did on Lizy P and then tried to make it up to Dalas, before being detained by Dalas' friend. Dalas Review made it clear that he regretted nothing of what was said and would say it again. He didn't lie or smear at all about the case, he just insulted a gentleman who had assaulted a woman in front of him, for which there is video and it's proven in public evidence.

The criminal sentence confirmed that Marlos was Argos and sentenced María Rubio Sánchez to prison

The first criminal trial ended in sentences for the entire family, mother, father, and daughter, but was overturned on appeal because of how the interrogation had developed and had to be repeated. A legal trick that lengthened the procedure further, which was already too long by then. That procedural annulment did not alter the 2017 civil judgment or previous obligation to return Argos.

The repeated procedure resulted in the judgment 413/2024 of the Barcelona Criminal Court no. 27. The resolution identified the animal presented with another name as Argos, examined the alteration or substitution of its chip and sentenced María Rubio Sánchez to prison for gross disobedience to judicial authority, in addition to an initial sentence for mild undue appropriation. This conviction led to prison sentence for what currently María Rubio Sánchez is considered a criminal, delinquent, with criminal antecedents in force for Spanish law and according to the Sentence 413/2024 of the Juzgado de lo Penal no. 27 of Barcelona.

In appeal the separate sentence for improper appropriation was removed as it was considered absorbed by the crime of disobedience, but the criminal sentence for disobedience and other pronouncements were kept in prison. It was not an acquittal for lack of evidence about the dog's identity, and the acquittals were not for lack of reason by Daniel Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review), but purely procedural issues ("legal" tricks). The resolution continued to refer to the same animal and maintained the legal consequence of its return.

The criminal conviction is solid. As of the date of this page's update, María Rubio Sánchez has a criminal record that is in force. The repeat trial did not erase the crime or end in acquittal: it produced a new criminal conviction that was confirmed at its core.

The execution changed from court; the dog was never granted to Maria Rubio Sánchez

The videos show a scheduled ordering drive on March 19, 2025. That document did not declare that the dog could stay with María Rubio Sánchez nor denied it was Argos. It determined that the execution should continue by civil procedure rather than from the criminal court.

The date is relevant: two days earlier it had been publicly announced that the dog would no longer have to be returned. The post-dental did not say that. It ordered the exhaustion of the civil route indicated by superiority, that is, it moved the execution route without erasing the criminal conviction to prison for disobedience, Argos' identity or the obligation to surrender.

The delay was bureaucratic, not a victory over dog ownership. None of the resolutions shown declared that Marlos was a different animal nor authorized Maria Rubio Sánchez to keep it. As of this writing, the parents of the criminal María Rubio Sánchez, continue to have Dalas' dog Argos, kidnapped under their power.

The veterinary records showed a lump and dental care pending.

Another of the videos shows veterinary documentation dated February 5, 2025, approximately one week after a delivery-related notification. The report records a knot of about two centimetres attached to the masthead musculature, the completion of a cytology and the need for surgery.

The same document indicates that Argos needed dental hygiene with radiological study, which is compatible with poor or nullified care by its kidnappers, the parents of the criminal María Rubio Sánchez. It also notes that previous dental treatments were reported, although the reporting clinic did not have a record there to accredit them, so it is likely to be false. The video shows the report, its dates and those paragraphs directly.

More than a month later, the intervention was still pending. It seemed that the parents of the criminal María Rubio Sánchez were not doing their due diligence for the animal care. The linked tests attest to the existence of the lump, surgical recommendation, need for dental examination and cumulative delay. Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) requested that Argos be immediately recovered to perform a full examination, operate any injury that required it and provide him with the appropriate veterinary treatment, paying all costs. To this day, the process is still unfinished.

May 8, 2026: Court dismisses appeal, declares bad faith and orders immediate surrender to Argos

The Decree of 8 May 2026, issued in the Enforcement of Judgments 591/2017-TE8, completely rejects the replacement appeal filed by Maria against the delivery request. The court confirms and maintains the diligence of March 24, 2025 in all its terms and orders that the executed proceed to the immediate delivery of Argos.

The resolution is unequivocal: it declares as judicial truth that the executed woman failed to tell the truth before the court and disobeyed the delivery order, while her parents kept the possession of the animal in a concerted manner to thwart the execution. He also claims that the criminal resolution does not distort the proven facts about Argos' identity and his illegal possession by family members of the executed, but confirms the existence of a serious disobedience.

The decree expressly condemns a lack of good faith in the proceedings and an attempt to use the criminal route as a shield against a flagrant civil infringement. It rejects the suspension of the criminal procedure as erasing civil liability and confirms that the enforcement must be terminated before the civil court.

If the non-compliance persists, the decree orders to give an account to the magistrate-judge to agree on the assistance of the public force, entry and registration in the domicile where Argos is located and imposition of monthly coercive fines until their effective delivery.

• Mary's appeal: rejected entirely.
• Argos delivery: immediate.
• Trial fraud and disobedience: declared as judicial truth.
• Poor trial faith and flagrant civil breach: expressly appreciated by the court.
• Entry with the assistance of the public authorities: provided that the non-compliance continues.
• Monthly coercive fines: provided for until Argos is delivered.

The complete chronology completely changes the narrative.

The case does not consist of an abstract discussion between two ex-spouses. There is a documented adoption by Daniel José Santomé Lemus, a civil lawsuit won entirely by him, an order for return unfulfilled, a dog reported as missing that reappeared with another chip, an incident recorded with documented injuries, an immediate call to 112 and a firm criminal sentence that confirmed Argos' identity and sentenced Maria Rubio Sánchez to prison for gross disobedience.

Presenting only the insults spoken by Daniel José Santomé Lemus after the incident, without showing the recorded assault, injuries, emergency call, dog's altered identification and court outcome, reverses history. The linked evidence allows us to follow each phase with images, audio and documents, and demonstrates why Daniel had been demanding Argos' return for years.

María Rubio Sánchez was sentenced to prison and has a criminal record as of the date of update. That conclusion must be part of any full explanation of the case: it cannot be replaced by a vague wording that conceals credible judicial disobedience and firm condemnation.