The Criminal Chamber issued a ruling that was available to EFE, denying the defendant’s appeal against the Madrid High Court of Justice’s decision, which upheld the Madrid Court’s verdict. The judgment centers on aggravated homicide by kinship and gender-based discrimination, along with a pattern of domestic abuse, including one habitual maltreatment offense, two domestic maltreatment offenses, one minor harassment offense, and another threat offense.
In addition to the prison sentence, the Supreme Court approved a 10-year probation for the respondent’s two daughters and revoked custody, prohibiting the defendant from approaching them for 30 years.
The ruling also confirms compensation: 250,000 euros to each of the two daughters, 100,000 euros to each of the deceased’s parents, and 50,000 euros to each of the victim’s six siblings.
The court notes that although the defendant was intoxicated, he was aware of his actions when he killed his partner with treachery and cruelty in front of his eight- and ten-year-old daughters.
The convicted party was described as having devastated the life of his partner, a 31-year-old woman originally from Paraguay, who was killed outside her Madrid residence on September 17, 2019. He is said to have waited until he saw her return home, then ambushed her from behind and stabbed her in the chest and abdomen on multiple occasions, leading to her death. Additional context from the court describes how the detailed sequence of events culminated in the fatal assault.
The two daughters witnessed the crime as they left the house to attempt to assist their mother.
In his appeal, the defendant claimed chronic alcoholism and argued that the events occurred during a delirious state. However, the Supreme Court recalled that the jury did not rely on a single expert opinion, but rather on multiple expert analyses. It also considered witness testimonies from individuals who had contact with the accused during the events and did not interpret this context as an implied state of drunkenness.
The defendant further demanded clemency for the confession, arguing that once he realized what had happened, he sought help for his partner and confessed to everyone that he was the perpetrator, cooperated with authorities, and did not flee. The Chamber rejected this argument, noting that the confession was not fully voluntary because, although the person under investigation admitted the crime to the police, he did not do so at the appropriate procedural moment, since he exercised his right not to testify at that time or later during the investigation.
As a result, the court affirmed that the confession was not complete, emphasizing that the defendant had spontaneously told the police he had committed the crime but had not provided a full, timely account as required by the procedural timeline.
[1] This summary reflects the court’s emphasis on the sequence of testimony, the evaluated expert opinions, and the legal standards applied to voluntary statements during the investigation.