The Second Section of the Navarra Court has decided to acquit a man who was accused of having caused a fire in the home of his ex-partner, located in the Old Town of Pamplona, during the night of July 6, 2024.
According to the reasoning of the court, it has not been proven that the accused obtained the keys of the complainant nor that, after waiting for her to leave the residence, he returned to the property and, after preparing three different focal points with clothing and other personal items, set them on fire.
In the oral hearing, held in June, the private prosecution exercised by the ex-partner demanded 10 years in prison for the accused for a crime of arson, a request that was not assumed by the public prosecutor's office.
During the trial, the accused did admit to having violated both the restraining order and the prohibition of communicating with the victim that had been imposed by judicial resolution.
Therefore, the Second Section of the Court imposes 9 months in prison for a continued crime of breach of precautionary measure and another 3 months for a crime of burglary in the degree of attempt, appreciating in both cases the mitigating factor of intoxication and drug addiction.
The acquittal for the crime of arson has already become final. The sentence establishes that, despite knowing the scope and validity of the communication prohibition issued in February 2023, the accused sent his ex an email on April 1, 2024, as well as two WhatsApp messages on June 18 and July 2 and 3 of the same year.
Likewise, it is considered proven that, around 5 PM on July 6, 2024, the accused went to the complainant's home, went up to the apartment, and "attempted to open the door, leaving the place without succeeding."
However, the Court concludes that it has not been proven that, on that same day, when the woman left home to go to work, the man accessed the residence and caused the fire.
For the accusation of arson, the accused remained in provisional detention for this cause from July 9 of that year until January 8, 2025.
NO DNA TRACE
The Second Section of the Court emphasizes that "there is no evidence" to affirm that the accused had keys that opened the residence, nor that he had stolen keys from that home from the complainant.
"On the other hand, from the evidence presented, it has not been proven, despite the argumentative effort of the prosecution's lawyer, that the accused intervened in the fire that occurred on the night of July 6 at the complainant's home. No base indications have been proven beyond the mere suspicions of the complainant," insist the judges.
Furthermore, the court emphasizes that "neither fingerprints nor biological remains nor DNA of the accused were found in the apartment, which may be due to the fact that they did not exist, not that they were destroyed; DNA is not always destroyed in a fire; it may exist in some element and has not been found, so this non-existence can never constitute an indication against the accused."
In this line, the judges recall that the accused not only denied having started the fire but also presented witnesses who testified to having been with him in a bar during several moments of the afternoon of the 6th, at least, "between the hours when the complainant left her home and the fire occurred."
Consequently, the Court concludes that, in this specific case, from the set of evidence presented, it does not follow "the concurrence of sufficient and adequate indications nor of substance to the certainty required by criminal law to prove the authorship of the accused of the fire that occurred in the residence," so it is appropriate to issue an acquittal regarding that crime.