The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has ratified a sentence of three years in prison and a fine of 853.35 euros for a man who was caught with 14.55 grams of cocaine in Puerto del Carmen. In addition, the accused has also been sentenced as the perpetrator of a crime against road safety to 50 days of community service, since he was also driving a car "without a permit" at that time.
The events took place at approximately 5:20 p.m. on July 4, 2016, when the accused was driving an Audi TT through Puerto del Carmen "without ever having obtained a license or permit, with the consequent risk to traffic safety and other road users." Furthermore, "with total disregard for individual and collective health," he was carrying two packages containing 14.55 grams "with an average purity of 55.16%," which in the illicit market would have reached "a value of 853.35 euros," according to a court order.
For these events, the accused was already convicted by the Provincial Court in April 2018, but the accused appealed the sentence before the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, alleging that the drug was for "self-consumption." However, the TSJC confirmed the ruling, considering that the facts constituted a crime of drug trafficking, so the accused filed a new appeal, in this case before the Supreme Court, which has not even admitted it for processing.
He threw the drug away when he encountered the police checkpoint
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasizes that, as the sentencing court already took into account, the agents declared in the trial that "at the checkpoint they observed that the accused was throwing away the drug, that the substance was distributed in two packages" and that "there is no data to prove his alleged drug use."
"And even though the amount of drug seized was certainly small, it specifies that the aforementioned set of evidence allows us to rule out that its possession was for self-consumption," the court order adds, in which it is pointed out that "the Superior Court of Justice emphasizes that there is no evidence that the accused is a consumer of the substance that was seized from him, not even sporadically."
In this regard, the Supreme Court explains that "in the field of crimes against public health, it is evident that the proof of the purpose or destination of the substance for trafficking is ordinarily obtained through circumstantial evidence." And "the sentencing chambers meticulously indicate the evidence regarding the inference that the seized drug was intended for sale to third parties, fulfilling the formal requirement demanded by circumstantial evidence," adds the chamber, which considers that "the criminal relevance of the conduct is indisputable" and that "the subsumption carried out is correct."
Furthermore, given that the accused "does not allege or raise arguments different from those already used previously that allow this chamber to notice and appreciate what the reasons are that could give rise to a pronouncement that deviated from the conclusions obtained in the two instances prior to the appeal," the Supreme Court considers that the issue "lacks cassational relevance" and, therefore, rejects the appeal filed by the accused, ratifying the sentence.
According to the court order, the accused also has a prior conviction of one year and six months in prison for a crime of robbery with violence and intimidation that was imposed on him in 2009, although it is not computable for the purposes of recidivism.
