The Supreme Court affirmed the disciplinary action imposed by the Minister of Defense against a Civil Guard sergeant who was condemned to one year in prison for possession and distribution of child pornography.
A serviceman stationed at the Eritaña barracks in Seville was found to have concealed a mobile phone inside a folder containing ten images of minors in sexual poses, some with naked adults, and seven videos with similar content. Portions of this material were transmitted to a woman with 87 percent visual impairment via WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger using an official Civil Guard number linked to his device.
The court rejected the sergeant’s appeal of the military sanction, which sought nullification or, alternatively, a six‑month suspension that would render the punishment ineffective and affect his personal records. In his challenge, he claimed no harm was caused to the administration or to citizens and that the sanction was disproportionate.
The ruling concluded that the conduct contained clear criminal elements involving an intentional crime that seriously harmed the administration and the public in connection with service duties (as described in Articles 7 and 13 of the Civil Guard Disciplinary Regime).
discredit
The decision stated that the appellant’s behavior not only violated the fundamental principles guiding members of the State Security Forces but also showed a flagrant lack of respect for legality, dignity, honesty, and integrity. It was deemed an insult to the institution’s reputation and public image and caused serious damage to the prestige and dignity of the Civil Guard, eroding citizens’ trust in the body.
The Chamber affirmed the reasoning behind the contested decision to impose separation from service as the most severe sanction legally available. The conduct was described as particularly reprehensible and as a grave humiliation, given that the conviction for possession and distribution of child pornography demonstrated conduct wholly incompatible with the role of a soldier and a Civil Guard member who is expected to uphold the forces of law and order. It was considered directly incompatible with the standards previously set for the service.
The decision was regarded as proportionate, given the nature and seriousness of the offense and the mismatch between the criminal act and the formal duties of the Civil Guard member, especially in light of the alleged contradictions with duties of honesty, integrity, and respect for the law required of all personnel.
The Chamber rejected arguments that this represented the first sanction the appellant had faced, that he occupied a position with heightened trust, or that his file contained a congratulatory letter from the Director General of Security dated April 4. Since 2019, the events had no impact on public perception of the institution. It was noted that such evidence could not mitigate the severity of subsequent misconduct or distort the plain and rightful condemnation warranted by the facts.
As stated in the challenged decision, the appellant’s behavior stood in direct conflict with the standards of conduct and dignity expected of Civil Guard members. Members are bound by a code of ethics that governs their actions, and the court emphasized that the offender’s behavior fell far short of those expectations, undermining public trust in the institution.