The La Rioja High Court’s Civil and Criminal Division has upheld a prior State Court decision in a high-profile case involving Almeida. The court sentenced Almeida to a sentence that is reviewable for life imprisonment with a 15-year term for murder and an additional sentence related to a sexual assault charge. The ruling confirms the severity of the charges and the ongoing legal process surrounding the case.
The events were brought before a La Rioja jury in a trial conducted last spring, during which the defendants were acquitted on both charges. The subsequent appeal, heard in Logroño, challenged certain factual and legal aspects of the verdict and sought to reduce penalties through extenuating circumstances such as confession and damages.
During the oral hearing, the chamber dismissed several arguments advanced by four defense attorneys. The defense pressed for the application of extenuating circumstances and for the exclusion of the aggravating factor of treason. They argued that the death of the child should be treated as conditional, claiming that Almeida did not have a premeditated plan to kill and that the death occurred in the course of a mistaken moment. The chamber, however, rejected these arguments, stating that the defendant’s intention was to cause the child’s death and that the death was not accidental or the result of reckless behavior.
According to the court, the evidence showed that Almeida grabbed the minor by the neck from behind, applied excessive pressure, and covered the child’s mouth, causing suffocation. The contrast in size between the aggressor and the victim, combined with the defendant taking the child to his home and eliminating the possibility for escape or aid, left little doubt about the intent to kill. The defense’s assertion that treason was not properly raised in the first place and could not be introduced on appeal was also rejected, as it would impede the rights of other parties and undermine the principle of contradiction.
The sexual assault claim and the defendant’s statements
In addressing the sexual assault allegations, the court noted that Almeida’s statements throughout the process were inconsistent. The defendant suggested at times that the child willingly engaged in sexual activity, then altered his account and introduced new elements, including claims about alcohol consumption he could not substantiate.
The defense argued that the confession reduction should apply, but the court found that none of the statements significantly aided the investigation or expedited the proceedings. A letter allegedly written by Almeida to a prison chaplain, in which he claimed responsibility for killing Álex, was discussed in the appeal. The La Rioja TSJ emphasized that Almeida exercised the right not to testify during the preliminary investigation and only testified at trial. The letter, which was not sent to police or judicial authorities, was deemed not to have facilitated the investigation.
Additionally, the defense contended that Almeida had climbed stairs carrying his child, sought help, and confessed to the incident, arguing that compensation for damage should be available. The chamber rejected this reasoning, stating that the child was killed with extreme violence and that compensating for the harm caused by brutality was not possible. It also held that any attempt to resurrect or mitigate the consequences of death was not feasible.
Almeida also raised a violation of the principle of in dubio pro reo, which would favor the accused when factual doubt exists. The chamber argued that no doubt influenced the court’s factual conclusions, which were based on evidence presented at the plenary session. The court’s decision remains subject to possible appeal to the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.