The Criminal Chamber handed down a sentence to which EFE had access, denying the convict’s appeal against the decision of the Madrid High Court of Justice, which upheld the decision by the Madrid Court. aggravated murder by kinship and gender discriminationone habitual maltreatment offense, two domestic maltreatment offenses, one minor harassment offense and another threat offense.
In addition to the prison sentence, The Supreme Court approved the 10-year probation of her two daughters and the revocation of custody, which prohibits it from approaching for 30 years.
It also confirms:compensation of 250,000 euros to each of his two daughters, 100,000 for each of the deceased’s parents and 50,000 for each of the victim’s six siblings.
The sentence is of the opinion that it is proved that although the convict was drunk, being aware of what he was doing, he killed his partner with treason and cruelty in front of his 8 and 10 year old daughters.
devastated He killed his 31-year-old partner, originally from Paraguay, on the portal of the victim’s Madrid home on September 17, 2019.where he was hiding until he saw his partner coming, he stunned him from behind and stabbed him in the chest and abdomen at least ten times, causing his death.
Her two daughters saw the crime when they left the house to help their mother.
In his appeal, the convict claimed that he was “a chronic alcoholic and that things happened in a state of delirium”, but the Supreme Court recalls that “the jury did not appreciate a single expert opinion, but several expert opinions”. It also took into account the testimonies of witnesses who had contact with the accused during the events and did not appreciate the implied state of drunkenness.”
He also demanded that the confession be commuted because “As soon as he became aware of what had been done, he sought help for the victim and confessed to everyone that he was the perpetrator of the murder, that he cooperated in his arrest and that he did not escape.“.
The Chamber, however, assures that “it was not a full confession, because although the person under investigation spontaneously confessed to the police that he had committed the crime, he did not do so at the appropriate procedural time, that is, at the time he should have given his statement to the police and later at the investigating court, because at that time he exercised his right not to testify.” “.