The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has upheld a one-year prison sentence for a man deemed to have committed fraud by stealing and using a credit card without the owner’s consent, who was a colleague from work.
After acquiring the secret number, the convicted individual approached the ATM from which he withdrew 200 euros and subsequently visited a fruit shop where he made a payment of 321 euros, according to the ruling.
The incident occurred on the night of July 2015, when following a company dinner, the complainant offered the defendant a lift in her vehicle. During the journey, her bag fell, an opportune moment at which he allegedly seized the chance to take the card, having previously observed the woman entering her PIN.
In determining the sentence in the first instance, undue delays were noted as the judicial process extended over ten years, although the Court attributed the delays to issues in locating the case.
The conviction was contested in the Provincial Court on the grounds that there was an error in evaluating the evidence, a breach of the principle of innocence, and that uncertainties should benefit the defendant.
The man contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish his involvement, citing personal animosity from the complainant due to their shared workplace. He also pointed out that there were no direct witnesses to the crime and that the security footage did not clearly show the money being taken.
The Court dismissed the idea of ulterior motives in the complaint, noting instead that the woman had indeed offered to give the defendant a ride that day.
In fact, he was the last person the complainant had contact with before the card went missing and was subsequently misused. The Provincial Court stated that the Criminal Court, which evaluated the evidence, was in a better position to assess the significance of various elements and affirm their relevance in supporting the conviction.
Upon review of the oral hearing recordings, it was determined that the court had adequate grounds to reach a conviction and to overturn the presumption of innocence of the defendant. The errors mentioned by the defence were not substantiated.
In this instance, evidence was derived from the testimony of the cardholder, the investigating police officer, and the recordings captured at the ATM from which the money was withdrawn.
