The Cantabria Supreme Court of Justice (TSJC) upheld the lower court’s ruling, which had been issued last December, sentencing a man to eight years in prison for a sexual assault involving a partner’s daughter, a 21-year-old woman. In addition, he received five years of probation, a thirteen-year ban from any profession or activity that involves contact with minors, and a prohibition on approaching or communicating with the survivor for ten years. He was also ordered to pay compensation of 12,000 Euros to the victim. This decision stands as a clear judgment against the offenses and sets a framework for accountability in crimes of this nature. (Source: TSJC)
The court also confirms the conviction of the accused as the author of an article linked to neglect in protecting a minor. The case involves a woman who was fined 2,160 Euros for witnessing the events and not taking action to intervene. Both the TSJC Law and the Criminal Division pressed for a harsher conviction against the young woman’s mother, who faced the possibility of additional charges. One defendant argued acquittal because she claimed she was outside the room during the incident, while the other argued that there was consent to the relationship. (Source: TSJC)
Nevertheless, the TSJC issued a comprehensive sentence that reexamined all the evidence presented today and addressed each point raised in the appeal. The court concluded that the grounds for appeal should be dismissed, thereby affirming the trial court’s decision. (Source: TSJC)
Proven facts
According to the established facts, the young woman had just arrived in Santander to spend a few days with the two defendants and her biological mother. She was resting on a bed in a hotel room when she began to feel unwell and sleepy. The accused took the opportunity to lie down beside her, undress from the waist down, and remove her underwear and shoes. He then proceeded to engage in intercourse while she resisted, and she briefly managed to enter him vaginally before being overpowered. (Source: TSJC)
During the act, the young woman’s mother entered the room and did not intervene to stop what was occurring. After a time, the survivor managed to escape from the room and sought help from nearby neighbors, expressing panic and anxiety. The court rejected the mother’s claim that she could be held liable for a crime by negligence, insisting that a legal obligation to act would be necessary for such responsibility. The judge clarified that the obligations of guardianship arise between parents and underage children; in this case the survivor was 21 years old and not in a dependent or cohabiting relationship with the mother, nor did there exist a formal parental responsibility scenario. (Source: TSJC)
The court therefore found the offender guilty of negligence in his duty to prevent crime rather than negligent sexual assault. This issue had been raised by the survivor’s mother, who argued that she had been convicted of an uncharged offense. The TSJC explained that vulnerability would only exist if there was an inability to defend against any element of the crime. The court also noted that the accused was not in the same room as the attack, yet the survivor’s statement remained credible, and there were no significant contradictions in the victim’s account. (Source: TSJC)
With regard to the defense’s claim, the court accepted the survivor’s account of the penetration, corroborated by the analysis of biological samples that confirmed the presence of the defendant’s semen. The survivor’s escape from the hotel room without underwear was interpreted as a sign of extreme fear and distress, supported by testimony from witnesses and the emergency medical examination and Gynecology Service. (Source: TSJC)
On the question of consent, the survivor’s statement met the legal standards and was reinforced by objective elements that could not be aligned with the defendant’s version of events. The court found the account credible and inconsistent with any assertion of consent, especially given the evidence of penetration. The defense’s requests for mitigating factors related to drug use or alcohol impairment were denied due to the lack of medical evidence showing intoxication or withdrawal around the time of the events. (Source: TSJC)
Considering the seriousness of the act, the court rejected the application of a mitigating penalty for a minor offense under the circumstances, noting that the charge is treated as a serious crime in this context. The sanction is not yet final, as there remains a possibility for further appeal to the Supreme Court. (Source: TSJC)