Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The public prosecution, acting on Lucía Castañeda’s complaint, asks the court to find Iván Salgado criminally responsible in connection with a drill. The prosecution says Lucía allowed Iván to use the drill only to finish a shop job and did not allow him to take it home. Iván says he understood her message as permission to use the drill for his repair. 2. The record includes a cropped screenshot of Lucía’s reply: “Yes, use the drill to finish it.” The screenshot does not show the request that came before the reply or any message that followed. The parties have each had an opportunity to explain their positions. Iván’s side says it has no fuller exchange to offer, and the prosecution has not supplied the surrounding messages. The court therefore decides the case on the available record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the prosecution proved that Iván lacked permission to take the drill home, and whether it proved that he knowingly took it without permission. Under the supplied criminal rules, the prosecution must support each required element with reliable evidence. Suspicion or accusation alone is not enough. The burden remains with the prosecution; Iván is not required to prove his innocence or disprove the accusation. Submissions of the parties 4. The prosecution says Lucía permitted use only to finish the shop job. It argues that her words did not authorize taking the drill home and that the limited purpose was clear. Its submissions refer to WhatsApp proof, but the messages beyond the cropped reply are not included in the record. 5. Iván says the reply could reasonably have referred to his repair and supported his understanding that he could borrow the drill. He accepts that the crop does not settle the meaning and does not claim it conclusively proves permission to take the drill home. He argues that the prosecution has not proved either that the taking was unauthorized or that he knew it was unauthorized. He asks that criminal responsibility be denied. Evidence and findings 6. The screenshot is presented evidence and is relevant because it records a written reply from Lucía granting some use of the drill. Its wording is direct, but its context is absent. The crop therefore has weight as evidence that Lucía said “yes” to using the drill for a stated purpose; it does not establish what “finish it” referred to or whether that permission included taking the drill home. The repeated presentation of the same cropped reply does not add independent proof. 7. The prosecution’s statements consistently describe permission as limited to the shop job. They are allegations and explanations of its position, not the missing surrounding messages. The court has no basis in this record to treat the prosecution’s description of those messages as independently verified. Iván’s account likewise is not conclusive proof of the permission’s scope. The competing interpretations remain unresolved. 8. The record does not establish that Iván knowingly acted without permission. The screenshot lends some support to his account that he received permission to use the drill, but does not prove that his interpretation was correct. Conversely, the prosecution has not provided reliable evidence resolving the ambiguity or otherwise establishing Iván’s knowledge. No amount of loss or other remedy is established in the record. Reasons 9. On the permission-scope issue, the prosecution bears the burden. Rule 1 requires the side seeking relief to point to specific supporting facts or records. Rule 2 recognizes that written records can be more reliable than broad recollections, but the record here is incomplete: the screenshot omits the very messages that could clarify the permission. The prosecution’s repeated assertion that the permission was limited does not fill that gap. The court cannot infer the missing context in the prosecution’s favor. The issue is not proven. 10. On knowing unauthorized taking, Rules 8 and 41 require reliable support for each criminal element and make clear that accusation alone is insufficient. The prosecution’s theory depends on showing both that taking the drill home exceeded the permission and that Iván knew this. The ambiguous screenshot does not establish either point. Iván’s explanation is not accepted as conclusively true; rather, the prosecution has not carried its burden against the unresolved evidence. The issue is not proven. 11. The court does not find that Iván definitely had permission to take the drill home, nor does it decide ownership or any civil claim. Those matters are not established by this record and are not necessary to the criminal disposition. The finding is limited: the prosecution has not proved the required criminal case on the evidence presented. No adjournment is warranted because the parties have had their final opportunity, the fuller exchange is not available in this record, and the case can be decided under the burden of proof. Final order 12. The prosecution’s request for a finding of criminal responsibility is denied. Iván Salgado is not found criminally responsible on this record, and the criminal claim is dismissed. No payment, compensation, or other remedy is ordered. This judgment does not determine any separate property or civil dispute concerning the drill.