The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by a man who was sentenced to 14 years in prison for constructing a homemade bomb that caused injuries to three of his family members.
Initially, the Prosecutor’s Office sought 33 years of imprisonment, arguing that it was an attempted murder, but later reduced it to aggravated injuries.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, which EFE has access to, confirms 5 years for creating the explosive device, owning and transporting it, and 3 years for each of the additional aggravated injuries inflicted on the victims, who are required to stay half a kilometer away from them for five years after being released.
The convicted individual, Roberto AGG, has been ordered to pay 10,500 Euros as compensation for the damages suffered by the victims and to cover the medical expenses they incurred.
The defence argued that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial, especially by testifying last rather than at the beginning, before being informed of the evidence and statements of other witnesses and experts.
The Supreme Court states that the defendant’s participation, “whether at the end or the beginning, does not indicate any form of defenselessness, and no evidence was presented to support this claim. It was also noted that the defendant had the opportunity to speak last for three minutes.”
The defence raised concerns regarding the preservation of the custody chain of certain security camera recordings outside a hotel in Puerto de la Cruz and at a gas station, alleging that their collection lacked authenticity regarding the time and date, thus requesting their invalidation.
The Supreme Court deems the allegation of tampering with evidence to be unfounded and affirms that the custody chain remains intact.
The search of the industrial warehouse where the defendant was employed was also contested, as an identical battery to the one found in the explosive device went missing, along with other items that a witness claimed the defendant had discarded.
The Supreme Court asserts that the search was conducted with full legal compliance in the presence of the company manager, the defendant, and his legal counsel, hence dismissing this argument as well.
In conclusion, the court determines that each of the prior judgements “fulfils their role adequately in this case: the trial verdict presents well-founded reasons, and the appeal ruling finds no arbitrariness or irrationality.”
The judgements reveal that the defendant exploited his position as a locksmith and welder in a workshop in San Miguel de Abona to surreptitiously create an improvised explosive device using materials from the workshop and others acquired by him.
Once the bomb was assembled, he concealed it in the trunk of his car and travelled to Puerto de la Cruz, where he was staying with his former romantic partner.
After a couple of days, he departed from the hotel and roamed around with the vehicle carrying the contraption, visited his family’s residence in La Matanza de Acentejo, and placed it inside a white bag near the garage.
Eventually, a family member discovered the presence of the box and informed his brother, who was with their father, and they went to the location together out of curiosity.
Once one of them broke the padlock and lifted the top lid, the contraption was triggered, but instead of an explosion, there was a deflagration, resulting in minor damage.
Specifically, second-degree burns that took up to 48 days to heal in some cases, leaving behind enduring scars. Another victim experiences anxiety and has been undergoing treatment with anxiolytics and mild post-traumatic stress therapy.
According to family members, following a traffic accident, the accused fixated on the belief that his wife was cheating on him with a cousin, whom he threatened over the phone.
The Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands do not find definitive evidence of his culpability, but a series of indications collectively point in that direction, such as the handwriting analysis of the word “Goya,” a family surname, inscribed on the device, or DNA tests, although they are inconclusive due to familial relations.
The monitoring of his mobile phone activity in the hours leading up to the discovery of the contraption was also taken into consideration, revealing searches for information on homemade explosive devices.
Both verdicts, now upheld by the Supreme Court, dismiss the notion of homicidal intent on the accused’s part as argued by the Prosecutor’s Office, citing doubts regarding the actual aim to harm his family members and the absence of a genuine threat to their lives, given that the contraption did not detonate.
