Division 5 of the Murcia District Court recently handed down a sentence involving a priest from the San Pedro del Pinatar area. The ruling imposes a prison term of nine years for two counts of child sexual abuse, along with an obligation to compensate two minors with 8,200 euros after the completion of the prison term, in addition to seven years of probation. The decision also includes a prohibition on contact with minors and a requirement to stay at a distance from them, reflecting the seriousness of the offenses and the impact on the victims.
The court found the accused responsible for a sexual abuse offense under 13 for grabbing a boy’s genitalia while playing a video game at home, and a repeated sexual abuse offense involving a minor under 16 for touching the victim’s genitals several times to satisfy sexual impulses. In both incidents, the perpetrator allegedly abused his priestly status and the trust placed in him by the boy and his family to facilitate the misconduct.
In addition, the court issued a prohibition preventing the accused from approaching within 500 meters of the minors involved and forbidding any form of communication with those aged 9 and 10. The case had broader implications within the church community, as communications surfaced regarding other allegations and concerns about safeguarding within the parish network.
The denial and subsequent sanction emerged after the bishop of the diocese publicized concerns over the priest’s conduct. The bishop informed the Murcia District Attorney’s Office that, at the time, the priest was serving as the parish priest for multiple communities, including Saint John the Baptist of Yecla and the Virgen del Castle hospital parish, and that the individual had been dismissed from his duties in 2013. Records indicate that the priest already served in San Pedro del Pinatar and was later reassigned to different parishes before his dismissal. These details contributed to the broader debate about safeguarding and accountability within religious institutions.
The court also imposed a long-term restriction preventing the accused from practicing any profession or activity that involves regular and direct contact with minors for a period of ten years, regardless of whether the contact is paid or unpaid. This part of the sentence underscores the emphasis placed on protecting young people from potential harm in roles that put them in close contact with adults in positions of trust.
With a decision issued on Tuesday, the Chamber authorized the temporary detention of the accused, as requested by the public prosecutor and the special prosecutor. The court noted the severity of the sentences, including a total that exceeded sixteen years when adding prior judgments. The judges argued such a length increases the risk of escape or evasion, given the natural inclination of some prisoners to avoid serving lengthy terms, and thus justified the continued detention while awaiting further proceedings. [Source: Murcia District Court proceedings and official statements]
Proven facts
In May, the State Court confirmed the charges, establishing that the first abuse occurred in the victim’s family home in San Pedro del Pinatar, with later incidents continuing in Yecla. The relationship between the religious figure and the minor’s family appeared to be deeply entwined, to the extent that the boy often spent nights at the accuser’s home. The court noted that the perpetrator allegedly provided expensive gifts to maintain influence and control over the child. These gifts were interpreted as part of building a position of dominance and trust within the household, facilitating the abuse.
Prior to this complaint, the bishop’s office had already weighed other accusations of sexual abuse and one incident of sexual assault involving other minors against the same individual. Victims reported that they were touched in ways that suggested attempts at penetration. In these related cases, prosecutors had sought varying terms of imprisonment, proposing five years for some charges and longer terms for others. The combined history of alleged offenses contributed to a broader concern about safeguarding practices and the need for institutional accountability within the local church community.
The Superior Court’s decision signals that appellate avenues remain open, including possible review by the Supreme Court, given the individual’s clerical status and the potential implications for how child protection matters are addressed within ecclesiastical settings. The outcome reflects ongoing attention to safeguarding and the responsibilities of church leadership in protecting minors from abuse and exploitation. [Source: Court records and official statements summarized for public record]