Specifically, the Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife YCFR had been sentenced to five months in prison for this crime, while the other two charges, driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages and injuries due to serious recklessness, were referred to an investigative court.
The Prosecutor’s Office, however, insisted that it was a single crime and that it should have been addressed that way.
The Court finds it proven that on December 11, 2017 the defendant, now deceased, was driving down a street in Santa Cruz at 7:45 p.m. a vehicle under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
At that moment, he ran over two women while They were crossing a pedestrian crossing and he did not help them despite the fact that he was aware of what had happenedthat there was a possibility that they were very serious and that there was no one else in the place to care for them.
To this is added that it was night, it was raining and that since the victims were left on the road they were in danger of being were hit by another vehicle that was unaware of their presence.
The truth is that although there was the possibility of helping them without running any risk, the defendant fled and he continued his march in the carthen colliding with another vehicle, which caused several damages and was driven by a woman, who did help the victims.
Room understood that the defendant was in a state of nervousness or obstinacy powerful, but it did not completely annul his will, and even the intake of alcoholic beverages did not totally impair his ability to react.
However, YCFR confessed to own initiative to the police that he was the perpetrator of the hit-and-run and that he had fled the scene, despite not being aware that he was considered a suspect.
Once the court ruling was issued, the Prosecutor’s Office appealed it by means of an annulment motion, appealing to a procedural infraction, given that the magistrate had not united in the same case the crimes of driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, reckless injuries serious and one more omission of the duty to help, an error that the Public ministry came to describe as “perverse.”
The judge, however, understood that there was no connection between the facts judged and it formed separate pieces, of which it retained the omission of the duty of assistance to be ruled by the Jury and sent the rest of the summary to the Investigating Court.
All of this without listening to the parties, which prevented them from presenting preliminary questions in a timely manner and being aware of what was happening during the hearing, which according to the prosecutor violated their right to exercise their own defense and implied a breach of the rules.
In addition, another anomalous situation occurred, such as the fact that the prosecution and defense briefs referred to “many more facts” of those who were the object of the Jury, so they were not related to the case.
From this point on, a differentiation was made between the crimes of omission of the duty to provide assistance, on the one hand, and that of injuries and driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, on the other, when according to the Prosecutor’s Office it was only one.
Point of view in which the TSJC now agrees insofar as it maintains that “the connection between the facts is so clear that it prevents such dissociation”, to which it is united the possibility that two were issued contradictory sentences.
