In Alicante this Monday, a court examined a case involving a man accused of setting fire to several shops owned by friends, located near a municipal bunker, on the morning of March 8. The defendant reportedly acted in vengeance after a prior act that damaged his own property. He maintained during the trial that the intention in the latest blaze was to extinguish flames, and that the spread occurred by accident. The defense highlighted a backdrop of regional tensions between Algerian and Moroccan communities, framing the incidents as part of a volatile environment. No injuries were reported in these fires.
Prosecutors described a dangerous situation for local residents who camped nearby, leading to a request for a prison sentence of 12 years and 3 months. The events occurred in a single area where groups of homeless people frequently reside in tents. The defendant was detained amid an altercation with another homeless person accused of setting fire to three canvases belonging to others. Following the trial, the prosecution reduced the proposed sentence to seven years, acknowledging the risk present while noting the reduction from the initial demand. Firefighters reported that no accelerants were used to start the blazes.
One witness recalled that the defendant had threatened to tear down the shops and burn them, signaling a belief that the properties were empty. However, the Public Prosecutor’s Office assessed the risk of spread to nearby structures as significant.
Witness
One of the burned shops was occupied by a homeless man who did not reside there. He described waking to find the building in flames and being forced to leave when danger arose. Another homeless man stated he had spent the night outside and returned to find the shop reduced to ashes. The arrest followed a fire at a third storefront, during which the defendant allegedly fought with another homeless man. Police arrived, and the suspect confessed to causing the fires that morning, triggering multiple firefighter responses to the building.
The defendant had lost his former tent in a separate fire, and his documents were destroyed in the same incident. A witness claimed the defendant sought retaliation by setting others’ tents alight. The defendant maintained that he did not intentionally cause the fires and that his involvement was accidental while trying to control the flames.
The defense emphasized that police did not undertake thorough investigative work, instead relying mainly on the testimony of a single witness. If the court imposed a sentence on the defense, counsel asked the judge to consider a mitigated outcome and lessen the punishment.