DNA fingerprints were decisive. The samples taken in room 107 of the Atrio hotel matched those of two guests: Priscila Lara Guevara and Constantin Dumitru. On the first day of this Monday’s hearing, phone records and at least two witnesses established the defendants were at the scene, and expert testimony on Wednesday confirmed they stayed at the hotel the night of the robbery.
The remains were found in the toilet, including the lid and the cistern button. They were compared with those already registered in the National Police system, and both matched the fingerprints of the two defendants. A footprint from a third person, whose identity was unknown, was also recovered because it did not appear in the police database. Comparisons with hotel staff were not performed to rule out the possibility that staff could be involved.
This proved to be one of the most watched cases in Cáceres history. The Wednesday session was expected to present the investigative reports prepared so far. The Provincial Court Division would hear witnesses, investigators, and experts who valued the wine samples, along with those who examined body samples and analyzed the facial features captured by security cameras.
The morning brought a noticeably smaller media presence. Journalists could not enter the courtroom and had to follow proceedings from the adjacent room. They shared space with students from the Ágora Institute and law students. The police van carrying the defendants arrived at the courthouse at 09:15.
The media presence grew as the hearing progressed, though not excessively. Photographers documented the proceedings, while the defense and prosecutorial teams faced off with pointed exchanges. The lawyer for Guevara and Dumitru, Sylvia Córdoba, did not enter through the main gate and did not testify in advance. The session featured strong statements from the Department Head, the prosecutor’s office, and the defendants’ counsel. Córdoba questioned the methodology used by the wine expert Roberto Nebreda, challenging the basis of the valuation and the interpretation of the bottles. He was asked repeatedly about the origin of the wines and the quality of particular vintages, including Romanée Conti, prompting questions about grape varieties and production quality.
Judge Joaquín González Casso described parts of the intervention as unnecessary, arguing that one does not need to be a wine expert to assess the bottles. He noted that the court, not the lawyer, controls the proceedings. The insurer had submitted a report months earlier after two years of work, and its evidence was admitted, though the defense later sought to challenge it.
When the genetic analysis team appeared by video link and the facial recognition experts joined remotely, the quality of some images prevented definitive conclusions about the defendants.
The plan to review security footage during the session was abandoned due to technical issues. The chamber then adjourned, and the parties presented their closing arguments after the hearing. Carmen Barquilla, serving as public prosecutor, spoke at length, outlining the case against the defendants and explaining that the evidence placed them at the hotel during the relevant times and connected the documents to the robbery. She asserted that Priscila and Dumitru had enough evidence to challenge the presumption of innocence, though she acknowledged that there was no direct evidence tying both to the crime. She emphasized that multiple lines of evidence supported the narrative, including camera footage, key records, witness testimonies, the room’s DNA, and fingerprints found in the room.
According to Barquilla, the record suggested that the defendants occupied suite 107. The sequence of calls, the vehicle they were seen in, witness statements, the room’s DNA, and fingerprints all played a role in the case. Prosecutors reported on camera footage showing Priscila entering the Atrio on October 26, 2021, at 19:43 without luggage, followed by Dumitru at 21:07 in her company with a backpack. Dumitru reappeared at 01:32, and three minutes later, after Priscila placed an order for a salad and distracted the receptionist, he attempted to retrieve the room key for 106 from a box but failed. He later obtained the correct key, number 27, from the same box. A noted key registration anomaly suggested the 106 key was used at 01:27 on October 27.
Video footage depicted the accused leaving the storage area with a backpack and two heavy bags, temporarily placing them on the floor, and returning to the room with the bags. Later that day, they departed the relais & châteaux with bags that did not appear to be checked. The prosecution also highlighted that the couple paid for breakfast but did not receive it, stole four towels, and left the bathroom window open.
Regarding sentencing, the defense focused on the possibility of acquittal and release. Córdoba criticized the proceedings as disproportionate and argued that police reports did not provide adequate evidence. She maintained that fingerprint data were inconclusive and that the video footage was unclear, questioning the strength of the entire case. Dumitru offered a brief statement in defense, while Priscila declined to comment. In the days ahead, the court must decide on the defendants’ requests for release and determine an eventual sentence along with any related penalties.
Unfinished matters: keys and bottles
The Atrio case left two key questions unresolved. How did the thieves obtain the master key to access the cellar if the card was not guarded by staff or hidden in a drawer? Witnesses confirmed that the key location was known to a limited number of staff and that the night reception had stated the key was in his custody. The second open question concerns the missing bottles. Hotel owner Jose Polo spoke after his testimony, suggesting the robbery was committed by a hired thief and insisting that the person with the bottles was dangerous enough to warrant concern beyond a prison sentence. [citation]