ORA phone call made on February 4, 2020 at 17:23 WhatsApp was the 3rd communication of the Pontevedra State Court, Vigo in the first place a man who is legally prohibited from communicating with his ex-wife for exposing it serious threats. Despite this, she searched for him through the popular app. The victim did not pick up the phone, but even if no one answered, a simple act of calling was an act in itself, according to the judges. criminal offense In this case, the accused was repeatedly sentenced to 9 months and one day in prison, which aggravated the sentence.
Convicted after first sentence of Vigo court appealed. In his defense he argued: not accredited as the author of the searcheven if it is “possible” that this is a markup error, arguing that in any case it was a “unique” and “lost” call, considering its “legal consequence” to be “extremely burdensome” for that fact. However, in the face of this acquittal speech, the Pontevedra District Court, especially the Fourth Chamber, is clear on this matter. “The typical behavior of the offense of commuting the sentence for which he is punished [el acusado] does not require repetition or regularitythat is, a single telephone communication is sufficient to fill the criminal type when it is heavy on the accused. Absolute prohibition of making written, verbal or visual contact with the victim by any means of communication or computerized or telematic means”, the judges use in their sentences.
Sentence
A crime that does not require “repeat” or “habit”
“The typical behavior of the crime of violating the penalty […] does not require repetition or regularity; In cases where written, verbal or visual contact with the victim is an absolute prohibition, a single telephone contact is sufficient to fill in the offender type.
The law does not allow “restrictive interpretations”
“This offense does not allow for restrictive interpretations, nor does it contain elements to distinguish between more or less serious forms. Without prejudice to the assessment that the outcome envisaged by the legislator deserves, strict application of the law does not allow this behavior to go unpunished.”
The judges refer to the doctrine of the Almighty: Even if what is being prosecuted is a missed call, the crime is already considered “complete”. And as such, criminal jurisdiction is the response to this behavior, without being able to reduce the consequences for it. “This crime neither allows for restrictive interpretations nor contains elements that allow us to distinguish between more or less serious forms,” they speculate on a common type of violation in the judicial process – phone calls, email or social networks… used once. “Therefore”, “and without prejudice to the thought that the legal result envisaged by the legislator for the offense in question may be merited, strict application of the principle of legality does not allow accredited behavior to go unpunished”, in this case, a missed call from an abuser to his victim.
Source: Informacion
Anika Rood is an author at “Social Bites”. She is an automobile enthusiast who writes about the latest developments and news in the automobile industry. With a deep understanding of the latest technologies and a passion for writing, Anika provides insightful and engaging articles that keep her readers informed and up-to-date on the latest happenings in the world of automobiles.