The First Section of the Provincial Court has ratified a fifteen-month prison sentence against a man for selling jewelry that had been stolen from a house in Muñique, after the accused appealed a ruling by the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife that condemned him for a crime of receiving stolen goods while acquitting the accused of the robbery, among whom was also himself.
According to what is considered proven, on March 9, 2011, the accused proceeded "to sell two gold rings and a gold chain with a virgin pendant" in a jewelry store located on the old José Antonio street, now Manolo Millares, "knowing the illicit origin of the effects". Said jewels were recovered by the Civil Guard and delivered to their owners, but, with the sale, it is indicated that the defendant obtained "a patrimonial benefit of 870 euros".
Therefore, this man was sentenced to a penalty of fifteen months in prison in a sentence issued by the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife in which, however, he was acquitted of a crime of robbery along with three other people. And the fact is that the court did not consider it proven that any of the four committed it, which had occurred on March 8, 2011 in a house in Muñique, from where they had stolen a gold ring valued at 275 euros, a gold chain valued at 90 euros, a gold medal valued at 75 euros, a leather wallet valued at 32 euros, two mobile phones valued at a total of 195 euros, a camera valued at 99 euros and a gold ring with a stone valued at 208 euros.
"There has been no reduction in the defense"
After the ruling, the only defendant filed an appeal alleging violation of the accusatory principle for having been convicted "of a crime different from the one that was the object of accusation at the beginning". And, he argued that this "violated his right to be informed of the accusation," thus requesting that the sentence be revoked, a claim that has been dismissed by the First Section of the Provincial Court. Likewise, he questioned the conviction for the crime of receiving stolen goods alleging his "ignorance" of the illicit origin of the jewels sold.
"There has been no reduction in the defense", the court points out in a ruling issued on February 19. And, it points out that "the facts related to the receiving of stolen goods were duly introduced into the debate from the first moment", so it considers that the appellant had "the opportunity to know with sufficient anticipation the alternative legal qualification for which he has finally been convicted".
In addition, the Provincial Court points out that "the crime is of lesser severity than that for which he was initially only accused (robbery with force) and that the Public Prosecutor, when making the modification at the beginning of the trial, maintained his accusatory account, to which his latter qualification adopted". "Therefore, the public prosecution modifies its conclusions adding an alternative qualification to the robbery, with the request that the fact be considered as a crime of receiving stolen goods, but it did so without making any modification in its account of the facts and without causing any reduction of the right of defense", he adds.
Considers it proven that he knew the illicit origin of the jewels
Likewise, the court considers that there are "duly accredited circumstantial elements" that lead "to appreciate the certain knowledge by the accused of the illicit origin of the effects sold". "One only has to take charge of the way in which the accused himself recounts the finding of the jewels sold. Clandestine finding and that obviously betrays its illicit origin", it is pointed out in the sentence in which, however, the account of the accused is not included.
"It is not therefore a matter of less misgivings or simple suspicions against the accused", adds the court in its ruling, by which it dismisses the appeal filed by the accused declaring the sentence of 15 months in prison for a crime of receiving stolen goods final.
