Alicante’s Novelda court recently delivered a verdict in a high-profile domestic violence case involving a local resident. The proceedings centered on serious allegations of oppression, physical abuse, and attempted sexual assault that were reported by the complainant, who described alarming incidents that spanned a period starting in early 2020. The court’s decision, issued by Chapter One, resulted in a single prison sentence that was shorter than the prosecutions’ requested term. The defense, led by lawyer Alejandro Rodriguez Vidal, argued against the broader charges, while prosecutors had urged a total sentence of eight years and two months. The defendant was released by the court after the trial, pending any appeals or further legal actions. (Court records, Alicante Court)
According to the facts established by the court, the defendant had two prior battery convictions. The incidents unfolded in the home that the couple shared, a residence the complainant had to abandon for health and safety reasons during the pandemic. The relationship began in early 2020, and despite attempts to live separately, circumstances related to the COVID-19 crisis kept the couple in close proximity and within the same home environment for several months. This context underscores the tension that the court weighed when assessing evidence of ongoing harassment and control. (Court records, Alicante Court)
Arguing in the Street
On July 20, 2021, a confrontation occurred on a street in Novelda as the defendant tried to prevent the complainant from returning to Madrid. The judgment notes that the defendant reportedly grasped the complainant’s arm to stop her, and a bystander, a woman driving nearby, witnessed the dispute and stopped to offer assistance. The complainant initially declined help, but the drive pressed the issue, and the driver eventually left the scene with the defendant’s wife in the vehicle. (Court records, Alicante Court)
The court found no conclusive evidence that, during the cohabitation, the defendant subjected the victim to repeated blows or punches. It also did not find proof that the defendant monitored the complainant’s movements or that he struck a phone against a wall in a manner that demonstrated ongoing control. The ruling therefore did not classify these particular acts as proven under the charge of habitual abuse. (Court records, Alicante Court)
Regarding the alleged locking of the complainant in the home, the court determined that the evidence did not meet the threshold to prove the sequence of events described as dragging the complainant around the house with a dog collar tied around her neck. It also found no reliable proof of additional episodes in which the complainant was punched in the ribs or strangled to the point of losing consciousness. These elements did not meet the standard required to substantiate the most severe claims of physical domination beyond what had already been established. (Court records, Alicante Court)
The accusation of sexual assault was likewise not proven to the extent claimed by the complaint. The court indicated that there was insufficient corroboration to demonstrate a forced sexual encounter in the couple’s bedroom on the morning in question. The evidentiary standard for sexual violence requires a clear and compelling link between the alleged acts and the immediate setting, which the court found lacking in this case. (Court records, Alicante Court)
In its assessment, the trial court also noted that the victim’s statement, while important, did not contain enough content to establish habitual harassment on the part of the defendant beyond the contested incidents. The defendant consistently denied the allegations, and the court’s careful review of the testimonies and surrounding circumstances led to a conclusion that did not support all of the claimed patterns of abuse. The result reflects the burden of proof required in criminal cases where multiple serious charges are at issue. (Court records, Alicante Court)
Overall, the ruling appears to balance the seriousness of the accusations with the evidentiary standards applicable in Spanish criminal procedure. The decision to acquit or to impose a more limited sentence rests on whether the proven facts meet the specific elements of each charge. In this instance, the court’s determinations about the scope of harm, the consistency of the victim’s statements, and the sequence of events shaped the outcome, including the imposition of a relatively modest custodial sentence compared with the prosecution’s request. The case continues to be a focal point for discussions on how domestic violence is proven and prosecuted, and it raises questions about how best to support victims while ensuring due process for defendants. (Court records, Alicante Court)