The owner of the La Santa bar who acknowledged that the drug found by the Civil Guard in the premises in 2015 was his, but that it was "for a party", has used his right to the last word in the trial to apologize to the other defendant "for all the damage caused". "I want to apologize, because he is here because of me," said Juan Francisco I.D. before the trial was adjourned for sentencing.
In the second and final session of the oral hearing, another five friends of Juan Francisco testified, who spoke in the same vein as the witnesses who testified this Tuesday, all stating that they had "previously agreed" to buy drugs for a "private party" they were going to attend at a friend's house for another girl's birthday and that they had put "a pot" for it. According to their testimonies, Juan Francisco was going to take care of the purchase because "he knew someone who could get it". However, two of them have acknowledged that, although they put money in, they did not finally attend the party, one of them without remembering the reason and the other "because he was traveling". Regarding the other defendant, Albert F.T, they agreed that he had nothing to do with the drugs or the party, with one of them even stating that he did not know him.
Also testifying this Wednesday was a young woman who worked "occasionally" as a waitress in the Yemaya Bar-Cafeteria and who was there on the day the Civil Guard searched the premises. "I never saw anyone selling drugs," she said. The girl pointed out that that day she was at the inside bar while Albert was at the outside bar and that the Civil Guard officers "entered suddenly" and "brought people who were on the terrace inside to search them". Although she stated that she did not see the drugs that the Benemérita found, she did state that she heard Juan Francisco say that the marijuana "was for personal consumption" and that the rest of the substances "had been bought by a few people". "I heard it, really," she insisted.
The Prosecutor's Office maintains the charges: "Neither personal nor shared consumption occurs"
Despite this, the Prosecutor's Office considers it proven that the defendants were trafficking drugs in the bar and, therefore, has decided to maintain the request for a sentence of seven and a half years in prison and a fine of 2,482 for each of them. And it is that for the prosecutor neither personal consumption occurs, since 3.76 grams of amphetamines were found and the maximum amount for it to be considered as such is 900 milligrams, nor shared consumption.
In this regard, the Public Prosecutor's Office has insisted that for shared consumption to be considered, the people who group together must be addicts and, in this case, "they are not". "They have stated that they do it occasionally, not even on weekends, but from party to party". In addition, she has pointed out that the act of sharing must be intimate, "not of social significance". In this sense, the prosecutor has indicated that, according to the witnesses, "at least 30 people" were going to attend the party and "only eight to ten put money in for the drugs", that is, that "the rest were not going to consume". The prosecutor also considers that the fact that Juan Francisco declared that the drug would be placed on a table next to the drinks is "promoting consumption".
The Prosecutor's Office has also highlighted "contradictions" that, in its opinion, have been revealed in the trial. And it is that Juan Francisco stated that the drug had cost him 400 euros. "We don't know if they put in 8, 10 or 15, but the accounts don't add up," he indicated, adding that, according to market prices then, the value of the drug found would amount to 583 euros. "Well, they gave him a good price," he joked.
In addition, for the Public Prosecutor's Office there are "other indications" such as the fact of "the plurality of substances" found, the "availability of both" to access them given that they were found in the kitchen and on top of the cash register, the possession of a precision scale, the discovery of the "plastic bag with circumferences that coincided with the wrappings" of the drug, and the statements of the Civil Guard officers, who stated that they had knowledge "from passers-by" and from people who that day had been reported for possession of drugs that substances were being sold in the bar.
The defenses request acquittal
The defenses of the accused, for their part, have requested acquittal. In the case of Albert's lawyer, she has emphasized that her client "has always maintained that he had nothing to do with it" and that "he was not carrying drugs". "He was outside and did not know that there were drugs in the bar," she said, adding that "Juan Francisco has stated emphatically that it is his, that he bought it for a party, and that Albert had nothing to do with it".
For the lawyer, there is also "no evidence" that drugs were being sold in the bar. "No agent saw any transaction," she pointed out, insisting that "the people who said" that it was being sold there were not identified "nor anyone who bought it there". In addition, Albert's defense has highlighted that the four people who were reported after the search in the bar for possession of substances were "for joints or speed", not for cocaine or amphetamines, which were the drugs that the Civil Guard found in the premises.
Juan Francisco's defense has also insisted that the agents acknowledged that "they did not see any transaction" and has pointed out that the police report says that they intervened because they saw "a man smoking a joint, but at the door", and that the reports of complaint that were filed were against people "seen on the public road, not inside the premises". "The drugs of those people cannot be related to trafficking," he said, adding that it is not recorded that any of them stated that they had bought it in the bar.
"It has not been proven where the benefit is"
For Juan Francisco's lawyer, shared consumption does occur. And it is that, although people who were not consumers were going to attend the party, "it was a closed home". "It is not a place where consumption is encouraged," she pointed out, adding that the amount found "was small and appropriate to the number of consumers". In addition, the defense of this defendant has highlighted the "solidity" of the waitress's testimony. "She was present, she worked there and she never witnessed drug trafficking," she stressed, recalling that she also stated that Juan Francisco told the Civil Guard that the drug was his and that it was for a party.
"It has not been proven where the benefit from the sale of the drug is. Was he giving it away?" added the lawyer, who explained that only 250 euros were found in Juan Francisco's wallet, "an amount that is not exorbitant" and that "there was even little money in the bar" for parties in La Santa. In this way, Juan Francisco's lawyer considers that "trafficking has not been proven" and, therefore, has also requested acquittal for his client.
