A driver who was prosecuted for driving without a licence after it was withdrawn, an offence which could lead to prison, has been acquitted after the court agreed he had not been properly informed of the situation.
The events occurred on September 23, when the accused – showing “absolute contempt” for a condemnatory resolution filed in 2016 that sentenced him to 2 years, 6 months and 1 day, the deprivation of the right to drive and the obligation to carry out the re-education and road awareness course – was discovered driving. Specifically, “having his faculties impaired by the previous intake of alcoholic beverages”, as the sentence dictates.
The Guardia Civil, carrying out breathalyser checks in Torrevieja, stopped the vehicle at around 2.15 a.m. According to one of the agents, they subjected the accused to alcohol determination tests with two different alcohol meters. In both cases, the results were positive: 0.71 and 0.74 mg/l in exhaled air.
At that moment, the police discovered that the man had previously been convicted by the Criminal Court for driving under the influence of alcohol and that he had not taken the mandatory course, so his licence was not valid. Furthermore, they assured that the accused, in addition to testing positive, presented the following signs: alcoholic breath, slurred, repetitive and hesitant speech, pale and sweaty face, red eyes and poor balance.
Under these circumstances, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed two accusations against him. The first, for a crime of alcoholism regulated in article 379.2 of the Penal Code. The second, for another crime against road safety for driving without a permit, included in article 384.2 of the same legal text.
The accused, at the hearing, admitted having taken the car while drunk. However, in response to the crime filed against him for driving without a licence, he indicated that no one in the Court had informed him that he had to take the course and that, when he asked, they told him to “get a life.” Likewise, he argues that, although they called him to renew his licence, he did not do so because he lacked financial resources and because he did not know that he had to take a course, since no one had informed him beforehand.
In this sense, the Criminal Court number 4 of Orihuela, although it considers the commission by the accused of the crime of driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages to be duly accredited, as “sufficient evidence has been carried out to undermine the principle of presumption of innocence with relation to this crime”, the second illegality is questioned.
For the judicial body, the fact that the accused drove the car without knowing that he had to take a course is enough to acquit him of such a crime. In this way, it bases its acquittal decision on the “absence of evidence” that demonstrates that an “explicit request” was made to the accused about the need to complete the awareness course.
Thus, based on the accusatory principle and the in dubio pro reo principle (which indicates that if the judge or court has doubts about the guilt of an accused after evaluating the available evidence, the sentence or judicial decision must favour the accused), the sentence concludes that it is not proven that the accused has committed the crime of breach of sentence. Which leads to the final acquittal in relation to the crime of driving without a permit in article 384.2 of the Penal Code.
