The Madrid Provincial Court has issued a 20 year prison sentence in a case involving the killing of a man by his partner during an argument that allegedly exploited the victim’s physical weakness and failing health, preventing him from defending himself against the attack. The fatal act involved the victim being choked with a plastic bag over his mouth. The decision comes from Section 23 of the Madrid trial chamber after a verdict by a popular jury in November found Verónica CH guilty of murder. The court noted the victim had severe health issues, including advanced vascular problems that required prior heart surgery and the presence of HIV, along with multiple prior fractures from a separate accident. The jury had already considered evidence of a long history of serious health concerns with the couple.
The public prosecutor had sought a 22 year prison term. The defense argued for acquittal and, alternatively, requested a sentence of three years and six months for manslaughter, arguing that there was mitigating evidence related to drug addiction and significant delays in proceeding. The court ultimately found that the defendant intended to kill the victim, who could not defend himself, and that the act constituted murder rather than manslaughter due to the awareness and intent involved and the victim’s vulnerable condition. The court recognized a history that included drug use and its possible impact on judgment, but emphasized decisive elements showing an intention to end the victim’s life.
According to the court, the relationship between the defendant and the victim was described as an emotionally entangled partnership with several years of cohabitation. In the trial, it was stated that the relationship was not simply transactional, and that money and drugs had not been exchanged for sex in the manner sometimes alleged. The judge documented that the couple had been together since early March 2018. The defendant reportedly entered the period of the incident under a state of intoxication that impaired the ability to respond and assess danger, contributing to the outcome of the confrontation and the decision to take the victim’s life. The case describes the defendant’s actions as a methodical act that aimed to seal the victim’s mouth and nose, using plastic bags and adhesive tape to ensure that breathing was blocked and life was taken.
The ruling reflects a careful assessment of the circumstances surrounding the confrontation, the health status of the victim, and the conduct of the defendant during and after the event. It highlights the severity of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the impact of the relationship dynamic on the incident. The court concluded that the actions constituted murder based on intent and the circumstances described, and it imposed the measured sentence in line with applicable legal standards. The case illustrates how even in emotionally charged relationships, the law seeks to assign responsibility when a deadly act targets a person who cannot defend themselves, and it underscores the ongoing legal process in dealing with complex factors such as health conditions, consent and coercive behavior, and the role of intoxication in criminal responsibility. The decision stands as a reference point in Madrid for how authorities interpret intent, vulnerability, and lethal outcomes in domestic violence scenarios, with the involvement of the jury’s earlier verdict and the subsequent formal ruling by the court.