Internacionales

Sucesos de Venezuela | Carmelo De Grazia Suárez Abuadavi//
Cost Pro robber sentenced to four years’ imprisonment

Cost Pro robber sentenced to four years’ imprisonment

Cost Pro supermarket in Madame Estate. (File photo)

PHILIPSBURG–A 29-year-old man was sentenced to four years on Wednesday for involvement in the armed robbery of Cost Pro supermarket in Madame Estate on April 22. During the robbery NAf. 10,240 was stolen, as well as three mobile phones.

Carmelo De Grazia

Jamal Mario Mathilda was also found guilty of possession of one or more firearms, among which was an alarm pistol, between April 22 and May 22.

Carmelo De Grazia Suárez

The Judge in the Court of First Instance found it legally and convincingly proven that Mathilda had been among the persons who had robbed the supermarket. The Prosecutor was of the same opinion, and had called for a six-year prison sentence during the September 4 hearing in this case

Four gunmen rushed into the business and threatened customers and cashiers during the daylight robbery. The robbers managed to take cash and escape by vehicle

Workers were traumatised by the experience and the supermarket closed its doors after the incident. Staff and customers were confronted by four armed robbers, who aimed their firearms, ordering them to “get on the ground”, not to move and to open the register

Based on video-surveillance camera images, witness accounts and the suspect’s own statement, the Court established “beyond any doubt” that the defendant had taken part in the armed robbery. He was, however, acquitted of having stolen the mobile phones, for lack of evidence

“Together with others, the suspect was guilty of an armed robbery at a supermarket, during which a large sum of money was taken. Suspect has terrified the employees of the supermarket and the customers present at that time. Moreover, the supermarket was severely disadvantaged as a result,” the Judge stated in the verdict

Because the suspect was acquitted of the theft of mobile phones, the Court rejected the damage claims which were filed by two cell phone owners. Their claims were declared inadmissible