In a case decided by the Supreme Court, a Villarrobledo resident from Albacete received a sentence of seven and a half years in prison. The verdict related to events involving an industrial vehicle weighing more than 11 tons and a loader, tied to a dispute over a debt and resulting in serious injuries to a person described as a Frac collector. The court’s ruling affirmed the prior judgment that held the defendant responsible for actions that endangered another person’s life.
The incident occurred on March 4, 2014. The Frac collector involved had been pressing for payment for some time, and on that day, as the defendant took possession of a debtor’s vehicle, he observed a vehicle bearing the logo of a well-known company approaching the scene.
According to the upheld sentence, the defendant went into an industrial warehouse and got behind a bull-lift style vehicle that weighed 11.22 tons and stood 2.55 meters tall. The behavior was described as an intentional act intended to threaten life and cause serious harm. The unsuspecting victim entered the oncoming traffic lane and moved directly toward the defendant’s vehicle.
The Frac collector stood on the pavement while the defendant drove forward with the loader’s shovel arms extended and raised to a height of roughly 46 centimeters. The driver swung the vehicle toward the victim in a reckless, almost calculated manner. The shovel penetrated the right side of the other car, crushing seats and the hood, lifting the vehicle off the ground, and pressing it against a wall.
The collector became trapped between the vehicle body and the wall and suffered serious injuries that required a 28-day hospitalization. The court noted that the injuries could have been fatal, as the incident was judged to place the victim in grave danger.
The Albacete Provincial Court had previously sentenced the defendant to seven and a half years in prison for attempted murder, a decision that was later upheld by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court.
The defense arguments, which contended that there was no intent to kill and that the incident should be treated as an accident, were rejected. The court found that the proven facts demonstrated the defendant’s awareness of the victim’s presence and that the defendant deliberately moved into the opposite lane to gain a better view of the victim’s vehicle. When reaching the intersection, the defendant did not slow down, nor did he take evasive action to avoid the collision.
To establish intent to murder, it is enough to show that the driver knew the victim was between the vehicle and a nearby wall, creating a high likelihood that a crash would trap and threaten the victim’s life. The court emphasized that this awareness and the deliberate approach supported a finding of intent rather than an accident.
The Supreme Court described the attack as treacherous, noting that it was carried out with an instrument capable of causing substantial harm and executed in a manner that was striking in its audacity. The decision also stated that the defendant’s refusal to accept responsibility was not softened by referring to the events as emergencies, as the defendant consistently claimed there was no intent behind the conduct, characterizing the events as a mere accident.
[Source attribution: Supreme Court decision, Spain].