Puebla criminal court dismisses drill theft claim over unclear WhatsApp permission
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
A cropped reply allowed use of the drill but omitted the surrounding messages. The court found it did not establish that taking it home was knowingly unauthorized.
Read the original in-game verdictThe decision
The Criminal court in Puebla dismissed the prosecution’s theft claim against Iván Salgado, finding it had not proved that he knowingly took a drill without permission. The prosecution, acting on Lucía Castañeda’s complaint, sought a finding of criminal responsibility and return of the drill. No payment, compensation or other remedy was ordered.
The dispute turned not on whether Salgado took the drill home, but on what Castañeda had allowed him to do. Permission to use it was undisputed; whether that permission extended beyond her repair shop remained unresolved.
The court's reasons
The central evidence was a cropped WhatsApp screenshot containing Castañeda’s reply. As reproduced in the judgment, it read: “Yes, use the drill to finish it.” Neither the preceding request nor any following message appeared in the image.
That reply showed permission for some use of the drill, the court reasoned. Without its context, however, it could not establish what task the message referred to or whether taking the drill home was allowed. Presenting the same screenshot repeatedly added no independent proof.
The prosecution had to establish both that taking the drill home exceeded the permission and that Salgado knew it did. Its description of the missing messages could not substitute for those messages, and the court would not infer the absent context in its favour.
Salgado’s explanation was not accepted as conclusively true either. The decisive point was that the prosecution had not resolved the ambiguity with reliable evidence. The court declined to adjourn: the parties had received their final opportunity to present their positions, and the case could be decided on the existing record.
The parties' submissions
The prosecution argued that Castañeda had authorized a specific task: finishing the shop job. Permission to use the drill for that purpose, it submitted, did not authorize removing it or taking it home. It referred to WhatsApp support but did not supply the surrounding exchange.
Salgado’s side argued that the reply could reasonably have referred to his own repair and supported his understanding that he could borrow the drill. It acknowledged that the crop did not conclusively establish permission and said it had no fuller exchange to offer.
The defence maintained that proof of ownership could not, by itself, establish a knowing unauthorized taking. It asked the court to reject criminal responsibility rather than resolve the missing context against Salgado.
The background
Salgado took the drill from Castañeda’s repair shop after his last shift. Castañeda maintained that she had not agreed to him taking it home, while acknowledging that she had not expressly forbidden it. The instructions had been communicated informally through WhatsApp.
The case materials recorded a purchase receipt for MXN 2,400, the value Castañeda placed on the drill. The judgment nevertheless found no established amount of loss or basis for a remedy.
The dismissal leaves the separate property dispute open. It does not establish that Salgado definitely had permission, decide ownership or determine any civil claim concerning the drill.