He has also been prohibited from approaching or communicating with the young woman for ten years and will have to compensate him with 12,000 euros
The Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria (TSJC) has confirmed the sentence of the Provincial Court that last December sentenced eight years in prison for a man as the author of a crime of sexual assault about your partner’s daughter, a 21-year-old girl. In addition, a measure of probation is imposed on him for five years, he is disqualified from a profession or trade that involves contact with minors for thirteen years and he is prohibited from approaching or communicating with the young woman for ten years, who must be compensated with 12,000 euros. .
The court also confirms the conviction as the author of a crime of omission to the biological mother of the girl, who was fined 2,160 euros, for witnessing the events and not doing anything to prevent it. The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJC thus rejects the appeals presented by both the young woman, who asked that her mother be convicted of a crime with a greater penalty; as well as by the two defendants, who requested her acquittal, the first because she, as she argued, she was outside the room where the events took place and the second because she argued that the relationship was consensual.
However, the TSJC, in an extensive sentence released today and which reviews all the tests carried out and responds to each of the reasons for the appeals, concludes that they should be dismissed, thus confirming the judgment of the Hearing.
Proven facts
According to the proven facts, the two defendants and the young woman, who had just arrived in Santander to spend a few days with her biological mother, were in a hotel room when the girl began to feel unwell, so she lay down on the bed and “got drowsy”. The accused took the opportunity “to lie on the bed, where he undressed her from the waist down, took off her panties and shoes, and while she resisted being penetratedshe pushed him and told her that he wanted to leave, he managed to penetrate her vaginally”.
While the sexual relationship was taking place, the young woman’s mother entered the room, “without doing anything to prevent it from continuing.”
Some time later, the young woman managed to get away from the defendant and left the room, from which she ran, and asked some neighbors of the property for help, being taken to the hospital by the police, “given the state of shock, panic and anxiety that she presented” . The Chamber dismisses the young woman’s claim that her biological mother be sentenced as author of the crime of sexual assault by omission, because for this it would be necessary for the convicted person to have the legal obligation to act, that is, to be in a guarantor position.
He explains that this position occurs between parents and minor children and, in this case, the young woman was 21 years old, in addition to the fact that “they did not have a stable relationship or lived together, and she also has her legal family.”
For this reason, the Court did not condemn her for the crime of sexual assault by omission, but rather for the omission of the duty to prevent crimes. And that is one of the reasons for the appeal of her mother, who alleges that she is convicted of a crime for which she was not charged. However, the TSJC explains that defenselessness would only exist if it had not been possible to defend oneself from any of the elements of the crime, which does not occur in this case. The second reason for her appeal alludes to the fact that she was not present in the room where the attack took place, which the court considers accredited by the victim’s statement, which was “sincere” and that “it does not present a substantial modification in the nuclear “.
Finally, regarding the defendant’s appeal, it indicates that the penetration has been accredited by the statement of the young woman and corroborated by the result of the analysis of the samples taken, which concludes the presence of the defendant’s semen. In addition, he considers that the aggression has been corroborated by the way the young woman acted, that she escaped from the hotel room without underwear and he showed terror, as the witnesses declared, and also because of the result of the emergency medical examination and the Gynecology Service.
Regarding the consent that he alleges, he points out that the victim’s statement “meets the jurisprudential requirements and is corroborated by objective elements, which cannot be said of the appellant’s version” which, in his opinion “It is not credible, it collides with reality, from the very existence of the penetration”. Finally, it rejects the application of the defense or mitigation of drug addiction and alcohol abuse requested by its defense, because “there are no medical data close to the date of the events that allow us to affirm the existence of intoxication or withdrawal.”
The request that the mitigating type be applied to it given the minor nature of the crime is also not accepted, because, as it explains, it is a type applied to minor cases, but not to the crime of rape. The sentence is not final, since it is possible to file an appeal against it before the Supreme Court.