The Fourth Education Court of Elche, together with the Criminal Judgeship of Peace, decided to temporarily drop and archive the case against three young people who were investigated for a fire that broke out in a house after a wheelbarrow incident following a wedding.
Consequently, the court does not consider the facts to constitute the crime of compensation, after the accused requested the file, and closes the case with no criminal action. The defense attorney for two of the defendants, José Moreno Bernal, and the prosecutor’s office issued a positive report recommending parole. [Source: Court records, Elche, filing order details].
The events took place at dawn on October 30 of the previous year on San Agatángelo Street in Elche. The three men, returning from a wedding, reportedly threw a wheelbarrow into the gallery of a house located on the mezzanine level of a building. The pyrotechnic device ignited a fire with a large flame, which can be seen in the video associated with the case. Local Police, Firefighters, and the National Police responded to the scene and evacuated the building because there was a butane bottle on the balcony, as stated in the court decision. Among those evacuated were young children and elderly residents with mobility challenges. [Evidence: incident video and emergency response reports].
There was a can of butane on the burnt balcony, as confirmed in the photographic record of the event.
Elche judge, by order of the file, leaves the legal remedy open for the injured party to seek compensation for damages incurred in the fire. The initial valuation by the home insurer stood at 14,000 euros, but the official expert report reduced the amount to over 5,000 euros. [Insurance assessment and official appraisal notes].
The judge notes in the file order that the crime of compensation has not been proven and that the case should be dismissed. For two defendants who attended the wedding, they were cleared, and there was no crime of harm in this case since there was no intentional fraud and the economic damage did not meet the 80,000-euro threshold set by law for the offense in question. None of the appraisals could exceed the stated amount. [Legal standard and threshold clarification].
Without Intent
In the filing, the prosecution also argued that intentional fraud could not be attributed to the individuals under investigation, noting that the event occurred during a wedding celebration. The ejecting of pyrotechnic material is presented as a common practice in such celebrations. [Prosecutor’s notes on intent and context].
The Ministry of Finance adds that every time such devices are used in these celebrations, it would be counterintuitive to assume ongoing wrongdoing or continued acts with the potential for harm. It characterizes the act as reckless and stresses the likelihood that launching the device would not cause damage to a house. The ministry recalls that responders acted quickly to notify emergency services and neighbors to prevent the fire from spreading. [Official commentary on risk and response].
The attorney for the case, Jose Moreno Bernal, stated in the file request that the act should be described as reckless rather than intentional, and that the wheelbarrow did not deliberately target the house but fell onto the balcony as the device propelled itself. [Attorney statement].
As reported at the time of publication, residents had to remain on public roads for about an hour and a half until firefighters declared the area safe. [Contemporary reporting notes].