The Supreme Court has upheld a 35-year prison sentence for a Valencia professor who sexually harassed eight minors during class. [Source: Supreme Court]
The court does not apply a blanket yes means yes standard to this set of sexual abuse offenses. The new rule, critics say, could impose harsher outcomes for some convicts. [Source: Court records]
The conviction centers on proven conduct where the teacher groped students aged 13 to 16 without their consent, and without obvious violence or intimidation, during moments when students sought help with homework or received assignments to reinforce learning. [Source: Valencian judiciary]
The Criminal Chamber rejected the convicted individual’s appeal against a sentence handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Valencian Community, which, as the Valencian Court did previously, found six counts of sexual exploitation of minors under 16, with aggravating factors, and two offenses against adults under the same modality. [Source: Valencian judiciary]
The Valencia Court fixed prison terms at the legal minimums in light of the ongoing criminal pattern. The individual had already received six five-year terms for sexual abuse of minors and an additional two years and six months for the other two offenses, reflecting the court’s assessment of persistent criminal conduct. [Source: Valencian judiciary]
Court dismissed grounds of appeal
In the latest ruling, the Supreme Court addressed cases involving minors under 16. For those proven offenses, sentences ranged from four to six years. With the applied criminal continuance and the yes means yes framework, the minimum penalty rose to seven years and six months, sustaining the prior arrangement in this particular instance. [Source: Supreme Court]
Regarding offenses against adults, the possibility of a longer term remains if the current regulation supports it and aligns with the sentence already imposed on the convict. [Source: Court records]
The court rejected all grounds of appeal, noting an evident asymmetry between the accused and the victims. The relationship, the authority the teacher held, and the perceived hierarchy allowed abuse to occur in the classroom setting, with the acts occurring during instruction and using statements made by the accused in the teacher-student context, which complicated the capacity of the students to resist or report. [Source: Supreme Court]
According to the Supreme Court, the teacher’s status created a dynamic that enabled inappropriate contact, such as touching behind a student during lessons or while handling devices like cell phones, behaviors that many young people struggle to respond to within established norms of conduct. [Source: Supreme Court]