Criminal Lawyers in Robbery with Violence or Intimidation

What Is Robbery with Violence or Intimidation: Types, Penalties and Defense (Art. 242 CP)

Robbery with violence or intimidation against persons, typified in Art. 242 of the Spanish Criminal Code, constitutes the most severe modality in the catalogue of property offences. Unlike robbery with force, this criminal type protects a plural bundle of legal interests: the property of the victim, their freedom of decision, their physical integrity and, in the most serious cases, their own life. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has clarified that violence or intimidation must be suitable to overcome the victim's resistance and must be used before, during or immediately after the seizure to secure flight or guarantee impunity.

The criminal type contemplates two alternative modalities. Violence consists of any real physical assault on the victim (hit, hold, push, immobilize, drag), including the use of chemicals (burundanga, scopolamine, benzodiazepines) intended to nullify the will. Intimidation, in turn, is the threat of an imminent and serious harm that causes fear in the victim and breaks their will ("give me the money or I'll stab you"), without requiring physical contact. Alongside the basic type Art. 242 foresees three aggravated subtypes: the subtype of use of weapons or other equally dangerous means of Art. 242.3, which raises the penalty to the upper half; the perpetration in inhabited house of Art. 242.2, generating ideal concurrence with the offence of trespassing; and the subtype of lesser intensity of Art. 242.4, an escape valve that allows the judge to impose the lower degree penalty when violence or intimidation is of little relevance and weapons use does not concur.

The foreseen penalties reflect the gravity of this criminal type. The basic type of Art. 242.1 carries prison from two to five years, with the value of what was stolen being irrelevant: the action's disvalue lies in the attack on the person, not in the profit obtained. The aggravating factor of weapons use of Art. 242.3 (knives, guns, bats, screwdrivers, broken bottles and any object with real injurious potential) raises the penalty to the upper half, placing it at three years and six months to five years of prison. The perpetration in inhabited house activates the concurrence with the trespassing of Art. 202 CP, accumulating the penalties. When injuries are caused to the victim, ideal concurrence with the injury offences of Arts. 147 to 152 CP is generated, accumulating the penalties in accordance with Art. 77 CP. The lesser intensity modality of Art. 242.4 allows reducing the penalty to one or two years of prison, a crucial route in bag snatchings, light scuffles or intimidations of little relevance.

The technical defense is articulated on four axes consolidated by minor jurisprudence. First, the application of the lesser intensity subtype of Art. 242.4 CP: jurisprudence (STS 257/2019 and repeated decisions of Provincial Courts) admits the reduction in degree when violence is brief, does not cause substantial injuries and is not accompanied by weapons; a light push to snatch a bag without the victim falling to the ground, without lasting physical sequelae, paradigmatically fits this subtype, allowing a 50% reduction of the minimum penalty. Second, the denial of concurrence with injuries: the violence intrinsically necessary for the seizure is considered absorbed by the robbery type, not constituting autonomous injuries; only when serious and disproportionate injuries to the appropriative purpose are accredited is concurrence applied. Third, the challenge to the weapons aggravating factor: when the displayed object was simulated (blank gun, plastic replica) and its real injurious incapacity is expertly accredited, jurisprudence admits the concurrence of valid intimidation but excludes the aggravating factor of Art. 242.3. Fourth, the questioning of identification: the prosecution evidence in robberies with violence is habitually sustained on the victim's recognition, often fragile evidence that the defense can attack with psychological expert opinion on memory reliability.

In current forensic practice we observe a growing evidentiary complexity derived from the sophistication of commission modalities: snatchings perpetrated from motorcycles, ATM robberies using jammers, home break-ins through the "violin" method (deception at the door) and robberies with chemical submission through surreptitious administration of substances in drinks. Provincial Courts have consolidated criteria on the expert assessment of the injurious potential of simulated weapons, the individualization of conduct in groups and the application of the lesser intensity subtype. At Alonso Sala, with over fifteen years of experience in property and personal integrity offences, we articulate the defense from the first proceeding through armory expert opinion when appropriate, challenge to victim recognition, negotiation of qualification with the Prosecutor's Office and design of procedural strategies oriented to the application of the attenuated subtype or, when appropriate, to the suspension of the custodial sentence.

Difference Between Violence and Intimidation

• Violencia: Uso de fuerza física real sobre la víctima (golpear, sujetar, empujar, inmovilizar). Incluye el uso de sustancias químicas.
• Intimidación: Amenaza de un mal inminente y grave. Debe tener entidad suficiente para doblegar la voluntad de la víctima ("esto es un atraco").

Use of Weapons (Aggravated Subtype)

Si el robo se comete haciendo uso de armas u otros medios peligrosos (navajas, pistolas, bates, destornilladores...), la pena se impone en su mitad superior (de 3.5 a 5 años). Es importante destacar que el arma debe ser mostrada o esgrimida con capacidad intimidatoria.

Defensa técnica: Si el objeto no era objetivamente peligroso o si el arma era simulada, se debe pelear para eliminar esta agravante y volver al tipo básico (penalidad menor).