The Civil and Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of Extremadura fully upheld the sentence of four years and six months for the male and four years for the female. Constantin Dumitru and Lara Priscila Guevaraaccused of stealing 45 bottles of wine from the Atrio restaurant in the capital city of Cáceres, both convicted by the Cáceres State Court.
The Extremadura High Court dismissed the plea of the defense represented by the lawyer Silvia Cordoba, Against the punishment of those convicted as the perpetrator of a particularly serious crime of burglary in a public establishment, its annulment was raised, among other reasons. It was also confirmed that they were required to reimburse the wine insurer jointly and severally €753,454.
Oda states in one of its foundations: “We must fully agree with the court that there is sufficient direct evidence that the two appellants participated in the events, which is very clearly and neatly emphasized by the court and confirmed by the seventeen evidence leading to the authorship of the appellants.”
Likewise, the decision “They were in room 107 on the night of October 26-27 (DNA testing), and all the evidence unequivocally points to them as the perpetrators. Therefore, evidence of criminal content that deepens the sentence has been reasonably assessed on the constituent elements of the crime. robbery crime with the power they are accused of”.
Proven facts
The Chamber considers that the proven facts of the first-instance court are re-presented; This is the agreement of the two defendants, by mutual agreement and for the purpose of obtaining an unlawful advantage, the woman’s Atrio de caceres (directed by Jose Polo and Toño Pérez) A place they know as they have already planned the event that will be said on October 26, 2021, then on June 1, June 13, and August 12, 2021.
The reservation was only made by the woman using a fake passport carrying a backpack who observed Priscila that she had no weight when taken carelessly by an employee. The sentence then shows that the man came to have dinner and stayed at the hotel without registration. After having dinner at the restaurant in the same place, they went to the room after a guided tour of the winery.
At around 02:10 in the morning, the accused called the reception and asked for a salad and repeatedly asked the only employee in the hotel-restaurant how long it would take to serve the salad. The receptionist, refusing to fulfill the order, stated that he was alone and that the kitchen was closed and was surprised by the demand, that they ate a 14-course tasting menu, that he accepted the request upon the insistence of the defendant, stating that it would take at least 20 minutes to serve the requested one.
The attendant went to the kitchen. The moment when the accused appeared at the reception, where he went to the warehouse and took the electronic key, failing to open because there is no correct key. The employee returned to the reception after removing the salad. From the cellar door, the accused called out to the woman to return to welcome the receptionist.
So, minutes later, the defendant repeated the call to reception, this time to ask for a dessert, the employee objected once again and finally agreed to bring him some fruit. The defendant returned to the reception and took master key 27 from a box, opened the cellar with it, entered the tasting room, where he seized 45 bottles of wine, which he had kept in a backpack, and two large bags that immediately led into the room. before the employee returns to the reception.
The defendants left the hotel hastily at around 5.00 am. The man carried a backpack and two bags with bottles on his back. So that they wouldn’t jingle between them, he had placed four towels he had taken from the bathroom of his hotel room.get into a vehicle, conclude the proven facts of the sentence.
The decision is not final and can be appealed to the 2nd Chamber of the Court of Cassation..