The Supreme Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has upheld a judgment that sentences a man to 12 years and three months in prison for sexual abuse involving his partner’s two daughters. The Criminal Chamber dismissed the defense’s challenge to the assessment of the victims’ statements and confirmed the two minors must each receive 30,000 euros in compensation from the convicted man.
Between March 14, 2020 and April 7, 2021, the defendant reportedly penetrated one stepdaughter both vaginally and anally on multiple occasions and attempted to touch the private parts of the other. The court noted that the alleged acts occurred in the context of the family home, where the man held a position of trust over the victims. The partner described the eldest daughter as twelve years old at the time, and the other girl as a younger minor. The court described the offender as having touched the victims in ways that included touching the neck, face, and arms, in addition to the more serious acts already specified.
The defense attorney, Pedro Garcia, claimed that the initial verdict violated the presumption of innocence and argued that the victims’ statements before the Court of Inquiry contained numerous ambiguities. He asserted there was no precise specification of the imputed facts and that the experts found the statements to be inconsistent or unreliable.
“terrorist regime”
The court, after a thorough review of the record, rejected the appellant’s arguments and agreed with the original judgment, which carefully analyzed the two minors’ statements in the context of the police investigations and other tests. The TSJC emphasized that the minors were examined in detail and that the credibility of their statements was assessed in relation to the overall body of evidence.
The judgment notes that it is common for children who have endured trauma to avoid going into explicit detail about the events. It stresses that the victims were 9 and 12 years old when the alleged abuse occurred, and that the person responsible was someone who should have protected them, their mother’s partner and the other minor’s father. The court’s assessment reinforces the seriousness of the acts and the impact on the victims, while maintaining the integrity of the legal process and the rights of the defense.
The prosecutor’s remarks during the hearing in the Las Palmas District Court were cited in the ruling, underscoring the serious nature of the case and the need for just punishment.
The defense appeal suggested a possible conspiracy between the sisters based on a private dialogue during the investigation that included lines such as, “Excellent test, isn’t it?” and the other’s reply, “yeah, yeah, we were crazy.” The TSJC rejected this theory, characterizing the exchange as childish and colloquial language that does not undermine the authenticity of the minors’ spontaneous statements.
“He offered me to play a game”
The court confirms that the minors provided specific details that are corroborated by the evidence, including descriptions like smelling of sweat, being pulled down by the trousers, and statements indicating offers of gifts or games to induce compliance. These narratives, gathered during the proceedings, match the patterns of behavior described in similar cases and align with the legal standards for admissible testimony from minors in such investigations.
The ruling also notes that the events occurred during an extended period when social and health restrictions were in place. The defendant allegedly found opportunities to commit the offenses while avoiding the mother’s notice, a claim supported by statements from the mother and other witnesses. The TSJC references the presence of epithelial cells found on a minor’s bed in April 2021 as part of the evidentiary record. The court also clarified that discussions about pursuing further appeals can proceed within the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court if pursued by the parties.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision upholds the lower court’s findings and addresses the gravity of crimes committed against vulnerable minors. The ruling reinforces the obligation to protect minors and to respond decisively when such protections are breached. The case continues to illustrate how courts evaluate complainants who have endured trauma and how corroborating evidence is weighed in judgments of serious abuse.
It remains essential for readers to understand that the decision reflects a legal framework designed to ensure due process while prioritizing the safety and welfare of children. The appellate path remains open for further review, but the current judgment stands as a firm declaration of accountability for the individual involved and a clear message about safeguarding minors in domestic settings.