The Sixth Section of the Provincial Court has ratified a sentence of three and a half years in prison that the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife imposed on a defendant for robbing a supermarket in Mozaga with a knife, after dismissing an appeal by his defense.
The events, according to the sentence, took place on November 29, 2018 in the Simply supermarket, which the defendant accessed at approximately 12:20 p.m. that day and "acting with the intention of illicit enrichment and with the intention of causing fear" to the supermarket cashier, "approached her and while placing a knife on her side, indicated that she should open the cash register."
Faced with this, the cashier proceeded to open it, with the defendant seizing "215 euros that were inside the cash register." However, "before leaving the premises, the defendant tightened the knife against the cashier's side" and "told her 'don't call in three seconds because if you do I'll come back and stab you'".
Therefore, the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife sentenced the defendant for a crime of robbery with violence although it applied the mitigating circumstance of drug addiction, since it considered it proven that, at the time of the commission of the events, "he was under the effects of alcoholic beverages and narcotic substances that diminished his volitional and intellectual faculties." In addition to a sentence of three and a half years in prison, he imposed compensation for the supermarket property of 215 euros, which is the amount he stole from it.
He alleged problems with alcohol, cocaine and gambling
However, the defendant appealed said ruling, since he intended to have the drug addiction exemption and the mitigating circumstance of repentance applied to him. A claim that has been rejected by the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court. "The appellant does not provide factual data that question the conclusion reached by the magistrate of instance and that would justify an inadequate treatment of the modifying circumstances of criminal responsibility," the court points out in a ruling dated July 29.
In this regard, he points out that the magistrate of instance considered that "it does not appear proven that at the time of the commission of the events, the addictions to narcotic substances, alcohol or gambling that the defendant refers to were of such intensity that they determined the annulment of his imputability, since there is no report from which such an extreme results or can be inferred."
In addition, he points out that although "the defendant relates the facts, stating that he committed them due to his problems with alcohol, cocaine and gambling and that the money he stole was spent on buying cocaine" he does not relate that he did not understand the illegal act he was committing.
Regarding the application of the mitigating circumstance of repentance, the court affirms that "it is not until the moment in which he is questioned at the Police Station, when the subject has already been identified through the security cameras of the establishment, after his arrest, when he recognizes himself as the perpetrator of the robbery, an action that in no way can be subsumed in the aforementioned concept of the mitigating circumstance, since the procedure was already directed against the accused."
