An individual has been sentenced to seven years and three months in prison by a Criminal Court in Santa Cruz de Tenerife for robbing and assaulting a person with a machete who had just withdrawn money from an ATM in the Taco neighbourhood.
The court holds him accountable for the offence of robbery with violence and intimidation using a dangerous weapon, with the aggravating factor of wearing a disguise, plus another of causing injuries.
He has been ordered to repay the 300 euros that were stolen, as well as 150 euros for a mobile phone, 10,900 euros for the days during which the victim took time to recover from his injuries, and an additional 1,000 euros for the consequential damages.
A woman also implicated in the same incident has been convicted of fraud and sentenced to six months in prison. She is required to pay 5.20 euros for the transactions made with the stolen card belonging to the victim.
The incident occurred at 3:30 am on July 9, 2023, when one of the culprits, a 28-year-old man, along with an unidentified individual, started trailing a man who had just taken out 300 euros from an ATM.
They cornered and threatened the individual with a machete at a construction site in Taco.
The attackers, masked to conceal their identities, demanded that he hand over all his belongings while hitting him on the back with the machete.
When the victim shielded his face with his forearm, they repeatedly struck his wrist. It was during this struggle that the perpetrators stole his money, phone, and credit card.
The stolen card was later used by the female convict, who was acquainted with the other culprit from their time spent residing at the construction site.
The woman utilised the card to make purchases amounting to 1.95 euros at a bakery and 3.25 euros at a self-service store.
Subsequent to the assault, the victim sustained a two-centimetre wound on his left wrist, resulting in pain and limited movement when extending that arm. He also suffered a fracture in the left forearm, lacerations on the shoulder, and a hematoma that necessitated medical attention.
It took a total of 109 days for him to fully recover, during which time he was incapable of performing his regular duties, resulting in minor cosmetic disfigurements. The phone, valued at 150 euros, was never retrieved, and the owner is seeking compensation for it.
The defendant claimed during the trial, only answering questions posed by his lawyer, that he had been out socialising with friends that day, disassociating himself from the criminal acts and denying giving any card to the convicted woman.
The victim recounted how, upon withdrawing money from an ATM, two individuals approached him. He retrieved the cash and left, but noticed that they were trailing him, one brandishing a machete.
One attacker wielded a machete while the other brandished a knife.
Suddenly, he felt sharp blows on his shoulder, causing dizziness. It dawned on him that he was in an abandoned construction site in San Matías, being struck on the arm and leg with the weapons. The assailants demanded the money he had on him.
He described the two individuals as having a Moroccan accent. They snatched his wallet containing cash and cards.
Managing to escape, he noticed that one of the assailants had a wound under the eye, revealed when he briefly removed his mask. This detail led to the positive identification of the perpetrator during the trial.
The following day, he discovered unauthorized transactions amounting to only 5 Euros on his card, depleting the available balance.
Upon lodging a complaint, the police analysed surveillance footage from a store where the stolen card was used. The identity of the suspect was established when it was revealed that the accused had given the card to another person. Subsequently, a search warrant was executed, and the suspect’s residence was searched.
A search of the suspect’s home revealed two masks, a bank statement belonging to the victim, documents related to a police lineup conducted the previous year, and the suspect’s criminal record.
These findings were deemed by the court as “valid, sufficient, and rationally evaluated,” supporting the prosecution’s case.
