A nurse’s aide in a residence in Llíria, Valencia, faces a nine-year prison term after allegations spanning 2015 to 2019. Prosecutors say the caregiver repeatedly harassed a resident living with Alzheimer’s disease, exploiting the person’s vulnerability and diminished cognitive capacity during that period. The case was brought before the Fourth Division of the Valencia County Court this morning, where the prosecution outlined a pattern of abusive conduct by the caregiver.
The accused chose to remain silent and did not offer statements about the accusations during the proceedings. The defense contends that the evidence fails to meet the required standard for conviction, stressing that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
Witnesses described the victim, who died in September 2021 at age 60, as having advanced degenerative disease that rendered questioning impossible during the investigation. Some neighbors who observed signs of mistreatment could not testify in court or during the trial. In the procedural process, the court treated certain statements as pre-constructed evidence and read them aloud during the session.
Two indirect witnesses provided accounts of the alleged abuses. One saw the caregiver calmly enter the bathroom, followed by muffled sounds after the door closed. Center staff were alerted by the residents, yet help did not appear to be provided at that moment. Consequently, the two care facilities operating the Llíria residence during the years in question now face potential secondary liability totaling 60,500 euros, as requested by the prosecutor.
The former employee who reported the events said a resident had shared the alleged abuse and urged him not to be distracted, given that others were likely aware. The witness, who cared for someone with Alzheimer’s, recalled the conversation with a sense of urgency and concern for the victim’s welfare.
According to the testimony, after the former employee learned of the information, he discussed it with other staff members to verify its accuracy. Some colleagues avoided taking a clear stance, while one person suggested remaining silent to preserve workplace harmony and payroll at month’s end.
Other staff at the residence denied knowledge of any mistreatment, stating they had neither witnessed incidents nor heard direct complaints. The residents who reported the events admitted they could not compel credibility from others in the building, complicating the assessment of what actually occurred.
A forensic review by the Valencia Forensic Medicine Institute described the victim as having severe cognitive impairment and limited ability to communicate. The expert noted that the person could not understand questions and would not have been capable of providing sexual consent under any circumstances. The report described the individual as highly susceptible to manipulation, with behavior that was socially inappropriate in the context of the illness.
During the examination, no vaginal lesions were found, but examiners flagged inconsistencies in the responses and the patient’s occasional smiles during the procedure. These signs were interpreted as part of a broader pattern of sexual inhibition associated with the victim’s illness, adding complexity to the evaluation of consent and the experience of the resident.
One of the deceased’s sons testified that neither the residence staff nor administrators informed the family about the alleged abuse, and some staff reportedly attempted to downplay or conceal the issue. The son recalled that the matter was described as resolved, with no immediate action taken to address concerns about the resident’s well‑being within the facility.
When authorities from the Civil Guard Judicial Police informed the family that an investigation into alleged harassment by a staff member was underway, the family responded by removing the resident from the facility. One son described a notable weight change after relocation, noting a gain of nine pounds in a single week away from home, underscoring the apparent impact of the decision to move the resident from the care setting.
The case continues as prosecutors press for accountability for the alleged actions, while the defense maintains that proper standards of proof have not been met. The court will determine whether the evidence supports a conviction and, if so, what penalties are warranted under applicable law [Court records, Valencia Fourth Division].