The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJC has dismissed the appeals filed by the defense, thereby confirming the sentence previously issued by the Second Section of the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The ruling emphasizes that the original judgment thoroughly analyzed and evaluated all evidence presented, both incriminating and exculpatory, ensuring the defendants' right to the presumption of innocence.
According to the facts established by the Chamber, the two brothers, who were neighbors of the victim, planned the attack with the intention of ending his life. They went to the victim's home, one carrying a hatchet and the other a knife. When the victim opened the door, he was suddenly attacked with blows aimed at his head and neck. Despite the severity of the assault, he managed to take refuge in his home and close the door, preventing the assailants from completing their homicidal objective.
The aggression was not an isolated incident or a simple quarrel, but a planned action executed with suitable means to cause death.
The court stresses that the aggression was not a fortuitous incident, but a premeditated action carried out with tools capable of causing death. The ruling states that the defendants acted with the clear intention of killing the victim or, at least, accepted the high probability of his death, which qualifies the conduct as attempted murder. Furthermore, the treachery of the act was highlighted, as the defendants took advantage of the victim's defenselessness, surprising him at his doorstep without any real possibility of defense.
The Chamber also ruled out the presence of exempting or mitigating circumstances, such as intoxication or sudden passion. Regarding alcohol consumption, it was noted that it was only confirmed that they had been drinking, with no evidence demonstrating a significant impairment of their faculties. Nor was a sudden or passionate reaction appreciated, as the aggression was organized and preceded by the defendants' own initiative, without an immediate trigger to justify such a response.
The nine-year prison sentence for each of the brothers is maintained, considered a proportionate penal response within the legal framework of attempted murder. Likewise, accessory penalties are confirmed, including special disqualification from the right to passive suffrage, a ban on residing in or visiting the municipality of Santa Úrsula, and a ban on approaching the victim within 500 meters and communicating with him by any means for a period of five years in addition to the prison sentence.
