The Supreme Court has annulled the conviction of one of the defendants accused of trying to introduce 453.7 kilos of cocaine into Lanzarote by sea. The events occurred in March 2008 and the boat did not reach its destination, as it was boarded by French authorities on the island of Martinique. Then, in addition to the people on the boat, other members and collaborators of the organization were arrested.
Among them, a Moroccan resident in Lanzarote was arrested. According to the indictment presented by the Prosecutor's Office, this man was a member of the organization, contributed to financing the operation and was going to collaborate in the sale of the drug in Lanzarote. However, the first instance ruling, issued by the National Court, did not condemn him as the perpetrator of the drug trafficking crime, which is what the Prosecutor's Office accused him of, but as an accomplice. And this, according to the Supreme Court, "violates the accusatory principle".
"The appellant is not wrong when he argues that there is a substantial alteration of the specific fact for which he was being accused, even if it is a criminally less serious conduct," the new ruling states, issued on July 21. Thus, it annuls the first instance ruling and acquits the accused, who had been sentenced to 4 and a half years in prison.
He gave money to the family of one of the members of the network
In the first sentence, the National Court referred to three specific facts in relation to this defendant. On the one hand, he pointed out that one of the members of the organization asked him to be "aware" of his family while he traveled to South America, with other members of the network, to "maintain contacts with the suppliers" of the drug and get a boat for transportation. Thus, as was considered proven, the accused came to "collaborate economically" with the partner and children of the drug trafficker.
On the other hand, there is evidence of a meeting he held with him in March 2008, in a shopping center in Puerto del Carmen, when the boat with the cocaine was expected to arrive in Lanzarote soon. According to the first sentence, that meeting took place to "inform him of the situation". Finally, a few days later, when they learned that the sailboat and the drug had been seized, they had a conversation and the accused offered to buy him a ticket.
"In any case it would be concealment"
Although it accepts these proven facts as good, the new ruling of the Supreme Court concludes that, in any case, they do not prove his intervention as an accomplice to the crime, since for that it would have to be demonstrated that there was an "effective favor of the criminal act" on his part. Regarding the purchase of the ticket, he points out that this occurred after the crime was materialized, so "in any case it would be concealment" and not complicity in the execution of the same. However, since no accusation was made for that crime, a conviction is not possible now either.
Regarding the meeting in a shopping center, the Supreme Court considers that "at most it could constitute an indication, also not definitive, of the appellant's integration into the organization", which is what the Prosecutor's Office maintained but was not included as a proven fact in the sentence. And with regard to the help he gave to the family of "Pelos", while he was traveling to prepare for the arrival of the drug, he points out that this "is not equivalent to the financing claimed by the Public Prosecutor", "much less that said attention reinforced the criminal decision of the authors".
In addition, he insists that the sentence introduces a figure different from the one raised by the Prosecutor's Office in his accusation. "Nothing would prevent his conviction as an accomplice, but the fact is that his participation as such is alien to the partial financing attributed to him by the Public Prosecutor", the Supreme Court points out, which insists that he was accused as the perpetrator of the crime, considering that he was one more member of the organization, and not as an accomplice. Thus, considering that there has been a violation of the accusatory principle, it annuls the sentence and acquits this defendant, who thus avoids serving a sentence of four and a half years in prison.