The First Section of the Provincial Court has ratified a sentence that the Investigating Court number 3 of Arrecife imposed on a woman for occupying a home in Yaiza, imposing a fine of 360 euros and forcing her to vacate the property.
Specifically, the Investigating Court number 3 of Arrecife found her guilty of a minor crime of usurpation in a ruling issued in July 2019, considering it proven that the woman was occupying the home "without authorization" from the owner "since the end of 2016."
The ruling also stated that for "approximately a little over two years" there had also been a man in the property, without any title authorizing such occupation, with both remaining "in said home against the will of its owner."
However, the accused woman appealed the sentence, considering that there was no crime of usurpation and that there had been an "error" in the assessment of the evidence, violating the principle 'in dubio pro reo', which establishes that if the judge has doubts about the guilt of the accused after assessing the evidence, they should be considered innocent. This claim has been rejected, however, by the Provincial Court, which has dismissed the appeal.
An occupation that is not justified by a situation of need
And, in the opinion of the court, it is "unquestionable" that "the complainant proves to be the owner of the property" and that the occupation of the same by the defendant was done "without the owner authorizing" such occupation. Furthermore, it points out that "there is also no record of any link or relationship" between the occupant and the property.
"Her occupation, despite the futile attempts, can only be described as clandestine and carried out behind the back of the owner of the property," adds the Provincial Court, which also emphasizes that "this occupation has been prolonged in time without it being possible to identify it with a situation of need that has not been justified in any way. Therefore, it considers that "the limitation of the ownership of the passive subject is evident, which is what gives the conduct being judged its harmfulness and typical significance."
In this regard, it points out that "it should not be overlooked" that the entry into the home by the defendant occurs "without the knowledge of the property" and that she "has not justified or asserted any title that justifies her access and permanence in the property." Furthermore, it points out that "there are traces that this access is favored by the opportunism and exploitation of the fact that the home was unoccupied at that time" and that "there is in the actions of the defendant a clear vocation for permanence and prolongation in time."
The Provincial Court believes that "what has been done goes beyond the mere annoyance and inconvenience that the proven occupation could eventually cause to the property" and considers that there is "sufficient incriminating evidence" to convict the defendant of a minor crime of usurpation. Therefore, it dismisses the appeal of the accused and ratifies the sentence issued in the first instance, which stated that if she does not leave the home within a month, she will be evicted.
