The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has reaffirmed the two-year prison sentence for robbery with violence, six months for injury, and the payment of €9,000 to the defendant who stole €150 from a rental car used by a French tourist in Masca, whom he ran over when attempting to stop him.
The insurance company of the vehicle in which the accused was riding is subsidiary civilly liable for the payment of the specified amount and is also obliged to recover the stolen money from the defendant.
The events took place on 16 February 2021 at around 14:20 when the accused, along with another unidentified person, drove in a car that was not owned by them to the parking area of Masca, in Buenavista del Norte, frequented by tourists.
Taking advantage of the inattention of two French citizens occupying a rental car who were on holiday on the island, the accused entered the interior and took €150 in cash.
When one of the visitors tried to stop him, he jumped into the vehicle in which the accused was the co-driver and reversed, thus “brusquely” running over a French citizen, then fleeing without aiding the victim.
As a result, the tourist suffered a complete fracture of the tibia, requiring surgical medical treatment to heal, and it took 100 days for him to recover during which he was unable to perform his usual tasks, leaving him with a scar as a sequel.
The French citizens filed a claim in the courts for the stolen money and compensation for the injuries suffered, as recognised initially by a Criminal Court and now by the Provincial Court, through a ruling that is subject to appeal before the Supreme Court (TS).
In the second instance, the convicted person claimed an error in the accusation as well as a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence, to which the Court responded that it is “undeniable” his authorship based on the direct evidence and indications analysed.
The owner of the car in which the accused was confirmed that he had lent it to him at that time while they were fixing his own, which had already occurred and would be evidence of his innocence, according to the defence.
It was indeed confirmed that he was an occasional user of this vehicle and that he was using it on the day of the events, which the defence tried to dispute through what the Court considers “a flimsy argument.”
In determining the sentence, the declaration of the victim was taken into account, who identified both the accused, who was in the co-driver’s seat, and the vehicle.
