In a case from Valencia, a man received a ten-year prison term for arson connected to a dangerous fire at his family home
The defendant admitted to setting fire to the garage of his family house in Riba-roja del Turia. He acknowledged in court that his actions endangered the lives of his wife, his daughter, and their six-year-old grandson. Although he insisted there was no intent to harm them and that the fire would not spread to other parts of the property, the Provincial Court of Valencia found that the blaze posed a clear threat to the occupants by the time the flames erupted.
The court’s assessment was supported by a detailed expert report from civil authorities. The report concluded that the defendant posed an immediate danger to his family. In particular, one of the ignition sources was described as highly violent, located near a diesel tank and a boiler that powers the heating system, with a second flame close to a vehicle parked inside the garage. The material conditions increased the thermal load and the risk level. It was noted that rapid intervention by firefighting units prevented the fire from spreading further.
Chamber does not find an aggravating factor of gender-based discrimination though sexist actions were present
The prosecution had requested a twenty-one-year sentence for arson, threats, family violence, and ongoing unjust harassment. A defense attorney for Ildefonso GF, Andrea Sáez of Sánchez Abogados, secured acquittal on ill-treatment charges and achieved substantial reductions in the remaining sentences through application of mitigating factors and damage compensation after a thirty-thousand-euro deposit to cover liability.
There was a prior threat to set the house on fire
The defendant’s ten-year sentence for arson was accompanied by an additional six months for a separate threat to burn the home, a threat made three years earlier on the night of the incident, November 14, 2021. The victim reportedly postponed divorce proceedings due to fear. The case records show the victim’s fear influenced the dynamics surrounding the divorce and worsened the atmosphere at home.
During the proceedings the man described his motive as a desire to frighten and alarm his wife. He told his wife that he would inform their daughter she was adopted, a revelation that the daughter did not know at the time and that the defendant carried out in a cruel manner. He stated that the daughter should be told such things as a way to control the family and exert dominance over them.
Allegations of humiliation and abuse
Additionally, the court described ongoing conduct over many years. The defendant is accused of insulting and humiliating his wife and showing contempt for her religious beliefs, with remarks that were both derogatory and provocative. A 15-day relocation penalty was imposed in recognition of continuing harmful conduct and the persistent pattern of disrespect the court found in relation to his treatment of his wife.
The sentence also included 60 days of community service for a misdemeanor involving assault, specifically a punch to his wife’s left shoulder. There was no evidence presented that the act caused injury, but it was treated as part of a broader pattern of harassment and coercive behavior during the marriage.
The court did not consider gender-based discrimination as an aggravating factor in the arson and threats charges. It was argued that the behavior stemmed from a belief that the couple’s property had been taken away and they were left with nothing. The defendant’s perspective, as presented at trial, framed the divorce as a pressure tactic aimed at preventing his ex-wife from keeping the home he had worked to build.
In court, the defendant’s remarks reflected a belief that the home could serve as a symbol of control. He suggested that, without his involvement in the home and its creation, the situation would have been different. The statements underscored a sentiment that extended beyond mere conflict—it was an expression of dominance and an attempt to humiliate and intimidate his partner.