The High Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA) has upheld the conviction of a man for a series of robberies in commercial establishments in the province of Malaga. However, the court believes that three of the facts for which he was convicted have not been proven, so the sentence is reduced from five to four and a half years in prison.
The Andalusian High Court’s decision said that the Malaga Court had shown that the defendant entered six businesses that were closed to the public at the time in order to steal, with the goal of “obtaining an illicit benefit or enrichment.”
So, it was shown that in September 2023, he forced the metal shutter on the entry of a business in the capital and stole 1,800 euros, 100 work kits and tools. These items were only partially recovered because the accused sold them at a second-hand store.
That same month, he broke the main door of the business and stole 100 euros. Then, in the early hours of a day in early October, he broke the metal fence and the glass entrance door of a store and stole 500 euros, according to the resolution.
He went into a shop on a different day and took six Málaga CF shirts, a laptop, an iPad, and 300 euros. Days later, he stole 2,700 euros, a phone, an iPad, and a PDA from another store. The PDA was eventually found at a secondhand store. He also tried to steal from another store.
The Malaga Court found three more robberies, this time in restaurants, to be true. They happened at the end of October and in November of that year, 2023. However, the Andalusian High Court has now partially upheld the defense’s appeal and let him off for these crimes, which lowers the original sentence.
The court found him guilty of repeated aggravated burglary, with the aggravating factor being that he had done it before. He was given a five-year prison sentence. Now that the High Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA) has found him not guilty of three counts that were part of the repeated offence, he has been given a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence.
The Court questions the evidence used to prove some of the crimes that were the basis for the proceedings. It says that “the guilty verdict was reached on such a fragile evidentiary basis that it determined a partial violation of the defendant’s right to the presumption of innocence.”

No Comment! Be the first one.