A provincial court issued a verdict that clears two defendants of charges tied to an alleged sexual assault involving a 19 year old woman. The judges concluded that the sexual encounters between the complainant and the defendants did not prove non consent, leading to an acquittal that alters the trajectory of the case and the potential sentence that had been sought during trial and appellate stages. The matter unfolded as a private prosecution, with prosecutors pursuing the case even after the lower court had acquitted the defendants.
The rulings describe events that took place in the early hours after a night out. The complainant, a 19 year old, attended a nightclub with friends in Alicante and spent time with two men, one of whom is identified as a 20 year old defendant. The higher court noted that this individual had prior sexual relations with the complainant over several weeks before the incident, yet the court focused on the specific event and the surrounding details presented in the case file.
After leaving the nightclub, the three individuals traveled to the home of one defendant, where sexual activity occurred. The court found no direct evidence that consent was absent or that force or coercion was used to overcome any resistance. The defendants denied violence and asserted that the encounter occurred with the complainant’s full participation and consent. They also claimed that the encounter ended when the complainant noticed one of the defendants using a mobile device, prompting her to leave the residence without interference.
In the analysis, the court recognized the complainant’s account but also pointed to aspects of the testimony that raised questions about the reliability of certain statements. The court observed that during a medical interview the complainant expressed uncertainty about whether ejaculation had occurred, a point that later appeared in testimony at the hearing. Contradictions in the complainant’s account were weighed in assessing the evidence. The absence of explicit medical signs of violence in the medical examinations suggested that memory and later recollections of a sexual assault can be shaped by time and narrative, and may not always align with initial impressions recorded at the outset of a case.
Another witness, a housemate of one defendant, indicated that the complainant did not run away and parted on amiable terms, a detail the court considered when framing the overall context of the night. The authorities acknowledged concerns about how events were recorded or how personal life information was disseminated. Electronic communications were examined as part of the investigation. One defendant admitted using a mobile device to send messages, though investigators found no evidence that the phone activity was intended to document the complainant. The investigation did reveal that the worry about being recorded began early during the medical examination and persisted through subsequent proceedings.
Given the evidence presented, the court determined there was reasonable doubt about whether the prosecution had proven non consent beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of that doubt, both defendants were acquitted. The decision highlights the burden of proof in such cases and the strict standard of proof required in criminal trials, especially in sexual offense matters where perceptions of consent and the credibility of testimony are central to the outcome. Appellate proceedings will scrutinize whether the original findings were supported by the evidence and whether the legal standards were correctly applied when evaluating consent, credibility, and the presence or absence of coercive force.
Ultimately, the ruling reflects the careful balance courts seek between protecting the rights of complainants and ensuring that defendants are convicted only when the evidence meets the high threshold required by law. The acquittal applies to the charges as they stood at the time of the lower court decision, and any further appellate action will depend on whether grounds for appeal exist under the relevant rules governing appellate review. The case underscores the complexities inherent in sexual assault prosecutions, including how witness statements are interpreted, how medical evidence is assessed, and how communications and behavior surrounding alleged incidents are examined. While the outcome may be viewed through various lenses, the ruling emphasizes the principle that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction in such sensitive matters.