The Sixth Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has confirmed the sentence of five years and prison and a fine of 180 euros imposed by the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife to the perpetrator of a crime of robbery with force in a inhabited house and a minor offense of attempted fraud. The man stole an Ipad and other items as well as credit cards from an apartment at the La Santa club. Subsequently, according to what is considered proven in the judicial resolution, he tried to withdraw money with them at an ATM in the town of Tinajo.
The Chamber has dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, in which he requested the nullity of the proceedings, as well as the dismissal and filing thereof, alleging that the rules and procedural guarantees had been violated and that he had been caused defenselessness. Specifically, the appellant alleged that he requested the audiovisual recording on a CD of some images that were viewed in the trial and that it was not provided to him. The judicial secretary of the court reported that the CD could not be recorded. In the appeal ruling, the Chamber states that "there is no defenselessness" and considers it disproportionate to request the nullity of the proceedings due to the impossibility of making a copy of a disc.
The appellant also alleged "error in the assessment of the evidence and in the application of the law", since "no witness saw the robbery, there are no fingerprints of the accused, nor any trace of fingerprints." The defendant argues in his appeal, therefore, that "the evidence presented has not been correctly assessed."
The Chamber, for its part, considers fully proven and accredited by direct evidence" that the accused was the perpetrator of the events since he could be seen in the recordings of the ATM security camera. "It is considered proven by circumstantial evidence that it was the accused and not another person who stole the credit cards in such a way that the action of the latter was not limited to the unsuccessful attempt to withdraw money with the cards, but that he and no other was the perpetrator of the theft, given the short time that elapsed from when the robbery took place and the use of the cards", it is argued in the ruling.
