In a case unfolding on the Canary Islands, the Supreme Court of the territorial system in Spain rejected a claim by a man convicted of murder and sexual assault who argued that gender identity should exempt him from responsibility for rape. The court affirmed a 15-year prison term for the sexual assault charge, while maintaining harsher penalties for the underlying homicide. The defender had asserted that he did not desire the victim and that his claimed gender dysphoria meant he could not commit the rape.
The court described rape as a forceful act aimed at overpowering the victim’s autonomy, noting that the murdered woman did not face any gender-based obstruction due to dysphoria, and that the alleged condition did not excuse the crime. The judgment, reported by Europa Press, identifies Jonatan Robaina as the perpetrator, who was sentenced to 38 years in prison for the murder and rape of Vanesa Santana on the night of 4 June 2018 on the Canary Islands.
The defendant, who admitted to police four days after leaving behind a jacket at the crime scene, failed to acknowledge the rape despite expert testimonies. He claimed to have suffered gender dysphoria and insisted that he did not feel like a man, adding that he did not experience sexual desire for a woman. The court found that nothing in the actions could be invalidated by the alleged dysphoria and that the claim did not negate the sexual component of the crime.
In the ruling, there was no material factor that could undermine the actions or support a defense based on libidinous suppression. The conviction from 2021 by the Las Palmas de Gran Canaria State Court was upheld by the Canary Superior after a jury trial.
However, the Supreme Court partially accepted the offender’s objection, maintaining a 15-year sentence for sexual assault while reducing the homicide portion from 25 to 23 years. The court did not recognize aggravating factors linked to exploiting space and time or any prior disguise.
The court rejected the disguise claim, noting that the defendant’s face was visible in plain sight and the hoodie worn at the time did not effectively conceal his identity. The decision emphasized that the overall circumstances did not demonstrate a level of unlawfulness that would justify additional penalties.
The Supreme Court also clarified that while the defendant admitted the act might have been treacherous, there were no other aggravating circumstances found related to the timing or location of the crime that would warrant heightened liability.
confession delayed
The court found that the defendant’s late confession did not contribute meaningfully to solving the case. It noted that this admission did not advance the investigation or resolution of the crime. There is a claim that the victim denied being raped and that the defendant attempted to attribute the assault to others, which further complicated the prosecution.
The judges treated the confession as belated and not decisive, although there was evidence from the investigation concerning the sexual assault charge indicating that the accused had denied the facts that supported the conviction. Forensic doctors opposed accepting the abnormality or psychical alteration defense, arguing that such a defense could cast doubt on the defendant’s guilt.
According to the proven facts, Jonatan Robaina secretly entered the cousin’s home using a stolen key. He acted alone, wearing gloves to avoid leaving traces, and entered the sleeping room where Vanesa Santana lay. He struck her with a hammer about 30 times and then strangled her with a belt.
After ensuring the victim was gravely injured, he departed to fulfill his sexual intent, raping her before attempting to conceal the crime by hiding the body and cleaning the scene.
As part of the legal liability, the court confirmed monetary compensation: the victim’s parents receive 130,000 euros each, the brother 60,000 euros, and the couple 30,000 euros.