Commentary on Judgment No. 27050 of 2023: Vandalism and Owner's Surveillance

Judgment No. 27050 of April 12, 2023, by the Court of Cassation addresses a highly relevant issue in criminal law: the distinction between aggravated vandalism and simple vandalism. Specifically, the Court analyzed the case of damage to the storefront of a commercial establishment, which occurred in the presence of internal staff, thereby excluding the existence of the aggravating circumstances provided for by the penal code.

The Case Examined by the Court

In this specific case, the defendant, S. M., had broken the window of a shop where, at the time of the act, employees were present who had the ability to monitor what was happening outside. The Court held, based on Article 635, paragraph two, no. 1, of the penal code, that the presence of staff inside the commercial establishment cannot be considered as exposing the property to public trust.

Damage to the storefront of a commercial establishment - Presence of the owner - Aggravating circumstance of exposing the property to public trust - Exclusion - Reasons. The act of breaking the window of a commercial establishment, inside which staff are present who have direct perception of what is happening outside, does not constitute the crime of aggravated vandalism under Article 635, paragraph two, no. 1, of the penal code, in relation to the hypothesis under Article 625, paragraph one, no. 7, of the penal code, given that direct and continuous surveillance by the owner of the property does not allow it to be considered as exposed to public trust.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment of the Court of Cassation offers an important clarification regarding the definition of "public trust" in the context of property protection. The presence of the owner or staff within the commercial establishment implies active surveillance, which excludes the possibility of considering the property as exposed to public trust, as established by Article 625, paragraph one, no. 7, of the penal code.

• Direct surveillance excludes the aggravating circumstance.
• The judgment aligns with previous case law, confirming a consolidated trend.
• The case highlights the importance of surveillance in commercial premises.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 27050 of 2023 represents a fundamental reference point for understanding the dynamics and responsibilities related to damage to commercial property. The analysis of surveillance and the presence of staff within commercial establishments underscores how the legal protection of property cannot disregard the reality of the circumstances in which damage occurs. This jurisprudential orientation is crucial for legal professionals and entrepreneurs, as it offers defense tools and clarifications on what actually constitutes an aggravating factor in the crime of vandalism.