The trial for the attempted murder of three men in a house in Arrecife in an arson attack, which began this Tuesday, has already been seen for sentencing. The Prosecutor's Office has maintained the request for 23 years in prison for three of the accused and 22 and a half years for the fourth, while the defense lawyers have requested their acquittal or, in the event that they are convicted, that the incomplete exemption or the "highly qualified" mitigating circumstance for drug addiction be applied to them.
And, in the first session of the trial, the four defendants declared that they were habitual drug users, three of them since the age of 13. A fact that their lawyers have clung to, some of them even presenting reports to prove this fact. However, the Prosecutor's Office not only considers that their authorship has been proven, but that "in no case has it been considered that the accused had a cognitive impairment", according to forensic reports. Therefore, it believes that "the possibility of exemption or mitigation" due to drug use is not proven.
"Everyone was aware of what was going to happen," the prosecutor has also pointed out, indicating that she does not believe it was "accidental" that the accused were in the house. In this regard, she emphasized the testimony of the owners of a nearby car workshop, who stated that "20 days before" the events, a woman who frequented the property, which, as has been revealed in the trial, was a smoking den, told them to be careful, that "they were going to set the house on fire."
In addition, although the owners of this business did not identify any of the two accused women as the one who gave them the warning during the oral hearing, she pointed out that they did so at the police station, where they pointed to the defendant Cristina Dolores H.V. "She knew everything perfectly," she stressed.
Likewise, the Public Prosecutor has highlighted the testimony of the main victim, recounting the "seriousness" of the events. "If it weren't for the fact that he was rescued by his partner, he would have died," she pointed out, highlighting that this man was "tied hand and foot" after the accused broke into the property "asking for money and drugs" and "hit" him, leaving him unconscious. "First they break in violently to steal and second they burn the house," the Prosecutor's Office added, pointing out that the accused sprayed gasoline both in the room and over the main victim, who suffered burns that put "his life in danger," for which he was hospitalized for two months in the ICU of the Burns Unit of the La Paz Hospital in Madrid.
Similarly, the prosecutor highlighted that there are police photos of the flanges, that both the main victim and another of the victims pointed to the accused as the perpetrators of the events "from the first moment", and that the fire report concluded that the fire was "intentional" by "direct flame on accelerants."
In addition to the prison sentence, the Prosecutor's Office also requests compensation for the victims for a total of more than 28,000 euros, as well as another 600 for the entity that owns the property for the damage caused to it as a result of the fire.
"There was never any intention to murder anyone"
For their part, the defense lawyers have agreed in pointing out that they do not consider that there is evidence to convict the accused. "The only thing that has been proven is that on August 14, 2019, my client was in the house, but because she had gone to acquire drugs, as was customary," said the lawyer for Cristina Dolores H.V. Words that were also repeated by the lawyer for the other accused woman, Ylenia A.R.
"How is it possible that at 4 in the morning, where there is no electricity, the witnesses could give all kinds of details about who they were and their participation?" questioned the defense lawyer for Rayco T.G., highlighting that the house did not have an electrical installation and was therefore "in the dark." For his part, the lawyer for Jose María H.A., although he has also requested the acquittal of his client, has pointed out that in any case he believes that "there was never any intention to murder anyone but to steal" and at most to "give a scare" to the occupants of the house so that they would give them the drugs and that "there was no premeditation."
In this sense, he has also pointed out that two of the victims only suffered minor injuries, so "at most we can speak of a minor offense of injuries."
Likewise, he considers that we cannot speak of a consummated robbery offense either, but at most of an attempt. And, although one of the victims stated that 15 euros had been stolen from him, in the trial he retracted his words, stating that "he was not missing or claiming anything," pointed out the lawyer for José María H.A.
The defenses have also tried to discredit the testimony of the main victim, alluding to the fact that he recognized that that night he "had consumed" drugs and that, in addition, according to another companion, he also took "sleeping pills." Similarly, they have pointed out that there are "contradictions" in the accounts of the other victims, one of whom did not testify in the trial because she was untraceable -although she did so in the investigation phase- and the other tried to reduce the responsibility of the accused.
Act to see if it is appropriate to extend pre-trial detention
After the oral hearing was concluded, a hearing was held to see if it is appropriate to extend the pre-trial detention of the accused until the sentence is issued, given that they will all soon be serving two years in prison for these events preventively.
In this regard, the defense lawyers have opposed this request from the Public Prosecutor, arguing that they believe that the function of pre-trial detention has already been fulfilled, which was to prevent the defendants from not appearing at the trial, and that there is no risk of flight on the part of any of them because "they have no means."
Thus, they have requested that they be released, with the obligation to appear in court periodically, with both the trial and this act pending resolution by the First Section of the Provincial Court.
