A neighbor in San Vicente del Raspeig recorded a sexual encounter with another woman without her consent and later showed the footage to two friends on the way to a party. The woman acknowledged that the video existed but stated that it had not been shown to a third party. She now faces a sentence of ten months in prison for a privacy violation, as announced in the court’s decision released on Thursday.
The third section of the Alicante County Court’s ruling confirms the ten-month prison term. A man was convicted by the Criminal Court of a privacy offense for showing the video to two friends during a social gathering, thereby exposing the intimate material of another person.
Additionally, the Provincial Court rejected the detainee’s appeal against the first-instance court’s decision, and upheld the obligation to pay 700 euros in compensation to the victim for damages.
The court found the facts proven to have occurred on 13 November 2020, involving a 26-year-old defendant who had sex with a consenting woman in his home in San Vicente del Raspeig, with the video recording made with her consent. A few days later, the man displayed the footage to a friend during a party, this time without the victim’s consent. The friend briefly watched the video, an act that was later verbally acknowledged to the injured party. The accused then showed the same recording to another friend.
The judgment notes that this spectator case has now resulted in an appeal decision that confirms the criminal court’s earlier finding in Alicante, affirming that the evaluation of the evidence at trial was reasonable and rational, including witness testimonies.
witnesses
The defendant challenged the initial sentence handed down by the court. In Alicante, the two principal witnesses were the women who were shown the intimate images. They did not present strong evidence at trial that they had seen the video. The court reiterates that the verdict rests on a holistic assessment of the evidence, incorporating the different statements of the witnesses. It notes that both witnesses admitted seeing the video, and at least one recognized the complainant as the person depicted.
The verdict highlights that the victim testified that one witness admitted watching the video on the night the defendant displayed it to him. In subsequent statements, the witness attempted to clarify that alcohol consumption may have affected his memory of the incident. The court remarks that these appearances were persuasive, and therefore the judge’s overall assessment of the evidence is considered correct. The appellant’s focus on selective elements did not overcome the total evidentiary picture.
The decision emphasizes that even if the defendant did not engage in a public distribution, the act of disclosing confidential images to third parties without the complainant’s consent constitutes a serious violation of personal privacy. The court therefore concluded that the conduct falls under Article 197.7 of the Criminal Code.
The ruling is not final and remains subject to further extraordinary appeal.