Badajoz County Court handed down a 24-year prison sentence to the man convicted of the crime associated with the JM bar association incident in Badajoz. A popular jury found the 27-year-old Jonathan FH murdered on Christmas Day 2019 on three separate counts, and also found him guilty of attempting to kill his cousin after the pistol he brandished jammed. The court’s ruling, issued six days after the deliberations, imposed 15 years for murder by treason and 8 more for attempted murder, with an additional sentence for illegal weapon possession.
In terms of civil liability, the defendant must compensate the immediate family of the deceased. The court ordered payments to the daughter, who was six at the time of the father’s death, totaling 150,000 euros; 30,000 euros to the mother; 20,000 euros to the sister with whom the accused resided; and 10,000 euros to another sister. The cousin was awarded 3,000 euros. The overall compensation sums to 213,000 euros.
The defendant was also barred from approaching the victim’s family within 500 meters for ten years and from any contact with them. He will not be eligible for prison leave until he has completed half of his sentence. Since the crime occurred nearly three years ago, the accused has remained in temporary detention.
The prosecution requested a total of 35 years in prison with damages totaling 210,000 euros, while the special prosecutor sought 39 years in prison, citing multiple murder counts, numerous attempted murders, and possession of illegal weapons, along with 280,000 euros in liability. An additional 12,000 euros was sought for the victim’s family and the cousin. The defense, for its part, argued for reductions of two degrees across the board and proposed sentences of 3 years and 9 months for murder, 1 year for illegal weapon possession, and 15 days for threats, reflecting a claim that the attempted assassination did not occur as charged.
The panel, led by Judge Enrique Montero de Espinosa, recognized a confession as a mitigating factor under analogical reasoning. Although the accused initially contacted the police and surrendered about an hour after the crime, investigators had since reviewed local surveillance footage clearly depicting the events. The Penal Code sets penalties for treasonous murder between 15 and 25 years, and the court, while accepting the confession as a simple mitigating factor, asserted that the minimum penalty remained appropriate given the nature of the offenses and the principles of proportionality and culpability.
The defense had also argued for extenuating circumstances such as stubbornness and overwhelming fear, but the jury rejected these grounds, finding that the accused acted with knowledge of his actions. Regarding damages, the court noted that the 7,600 euros paid on behalf of the victim’s daughter over the past three years was largely incidental to the charges and had been coordinated by the partner of the accused, not by him directly, seeming to reflect an effort to secure a reduced penalty rather than genuine reparation.
In its final order, the special prosecutor’s office highlighted an aggravating factor related to the persecution, a point the jury did not accept and the court did not rely on in its decision.
Appeals to the TSJEx
The family’s attorney, Fernando Cumbres, announced plans to appeal the decision before the Civil and Criminal Division of the High Court of Justice of Extremadura (TSJEx), arguing that the sentence did not reflect the severity of the crimes. He stated that the relatives of the victim were deeply affected by the ruling, lamenting that the act of killing had been treated with undue ease.
Defense counsel Enrique Gonzalez de Vallejo indicated that he intends to evaluate the verdict with his client and may contest aspects of the ruling before the TSJEx, believing there are grounds for objections. He suggested that a careful review is warranted to determine whether further challenges could be pursued.
The proceedings reflect a complex balance between punishment, reparation for the victims, and considerations of proportionality under the law. The court emphasized that the case involved serious offenses and that the response must align with the gravity of the acts committed and the need to uphold public safety and social trust.
The family continues to seek avenues for redress and reflects on the impact of the decision as they weigh potential further actions with their legal representatives. The court’s ruling stands as a landmark moment in the handling of a high-profile crime and raises questions about sentencing, victim restitution, and the considerations that guide appeals in Extremadura’s judicial system. This case is cited in discussions about treasonous murder and the appropriate thresholds for punishment and reparation, with analysts noting the interplay between confession, evidence from surveillance footage, and the court’s interpretation of mitigating circumstances. [citation attributed to court documents and participants in the proceedings].
The legal community will be watching how the TSJEx handles any future motions, and whether the appellate body affirms, modifies, or overturns the lower court’s findings. Overall, the decision underscores the enduring fragility of trust and safety in communities, especially surrounding violent acts and the long shadow they cast on families and local institutions. The public will continue to seek clarity on how similar cases are assessed and adjudicated in the future.