In the Atrio case, the defense argued that no witness had positively identified the individuals accused of the crime. Sylvia Córdoba, counsel for the two defendants, spoke at the close of the first day of witness testimony, a moment arranged at the defense team’s request.
Early in the morning, hotel owners were summoned one by one to the statement room, followed by the receptionist who was on duty during the alleged robbery. Each interview stretched to at least forty five minutes, with judges and defense lawyers posing questions. An insurer’s representative, participating as a private prosecution, attended the proceedings. Eight additional workers are slated to testify on the following day.
As the day continued, Córdoba answered questions on behalf of the defense for roughly three hours before the press gathered outside the courthouse. She praised the judge for driving the investigation forward and noted that the witnesses had offered substantial details about the incident, especially concerning the winery, the associated hotel, and the wines involved. She observed that the witnesses expressed strong curiosity about the missing bottle, which had sharpened attention on the case particulars.
Regarding authorship, Córdoba affirmed that none of the named individuals could verify whether the principal suspects were among the actual perpetrators. She also challenged the idea of an identity lineup, highlighting the heavy media exposure faced by the two defendants in recent weeks as inappropriate.
Turning to the defense plan, Córdoba stressed the innocence of the accused and reminded observers that they are awaiting an appellate ruling on the two individuals’ release. Both defendants remain detained in Cáceres after the court rejected the defense’s request to drop the arrest warrants following the questioning.
What sentence might the two defendants face?
The Atrio robbery case accuses two people of committing a robbery involving force against property. This offense is defined under article 241 of the Criminal Code, with applicable rules found in section 4 of that article. The provision outlines the penalties tied to the degree of seriousness shown by the crime, the method used, the damage caused, and any conditions described in Article 235. All of these factors will influence the final punishment.
Beyond prison time, a separate issue concerns the financial liability tied to compensation for the value of the wines. The court will determine the extent of liability owed to the insurer, which has pursued damages linked to the wine inventory and related losses. This element remains unresolved as proceedings continue, and it will be weighed alongside other charges in the Atrio case [court records, Atrio case].