The Provincial Court of Las Palmas acquits an individual who was accused of having sexually assaulted his stepdaughter for 19 years
The First Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas acquitted Francisco de Jesús SO of the charges of sexual abuse and assault and violation of his sentence, for which the Public Prosecutor requested 14 years in prison and 15 years in prison. The ruling, which had as its speaker the magistrate Secundino Alemán, considered it accredited that the defendant maintained an extramarital relationship with his stepdaughter from when he was a minor until he was 35 years old, but
The evidence practiced during the trial did not yield “the necessary certainty to lead us to the conviction that intimidation or prevalidation existed”, which led them to issue an acquittal, accepting as valid the thesis of the defense attorney, Roque Esteban García Aguiar.
The case dates back, according to the complainant, when she was 16 years old and began to live with the accused. She maintained at the hearing that he himself was gaining her trust until one day he took her to the room and raped her. When he finished he said that he paid him 20,000 pesetas to win the game and so that he did not count anything and in that way,
began to have sexual relations continuously and with their backs to the mother and the rest of society for 19 years.
The Chamber maintains that
there are “many doubts” about the “nature and motivations” of a continued and sustained extramarital relationship between the two “for a long period of time spanning at least a decade. ‘ Both acknowledged having had sexual relations for years, although the stepfather clarified that they began when his stepdaughter turned 27 and not 16 as she explained. Beyond the reality of the extramarital relationship, the Court understands that there was a
“Series of gaps in the victim’s testimony” that they do not “seem to fit into a relationship imposed and sustained for such a long period of time that it would make it impossible for the alleged victim to put an end to something that they did not really want,” he explains. Thus, the ruling warns that there are “serious doubts” about whether the complainant “was the subject of a vitiated romantic relationship at all times”, maintained by a “constant and sustained imposition of an atmosphere of terror and verbalized anguish in revealing the same to her relatives and even spread nude photos of her “, or if on the contrary
“We are facing an extramarital relationship” maintained “by mutual agreement and sustained with his back to his entire family”. At a certain moment “either because of the fear” on the part of the stepdaughter that she was going to meet or because “she simply wanted to finish with her and was also afraid that she would somehow meet”, or that “she did not have the strength enough to terminate it “, he decides to relate” a situation imposed by vitiating his consent as a self-defense mechanism to avoid the reproach of a long hidden extramarital affair “with his own stepfather that began while he lived with his mother under the same roof.
The ruling also highlights “behaviors of the complainant that are difficult to fit into a coercively imposed relationship.” He exposes as examples the duration of the relationship, which is maintained “until nothing more and nothing less than when it is 35 years old”,
not reflecting at this time “that we are facing an unstable, weak, dependent person, incapable of making transcendental decisions for his own life.” The Chamber also refers to the fact that the stepdaughter admitted “that she sent photos to the accused” without being coerced and that she tried to commit suicide when she was 18 years old “attributing that reaction to the situation she was experiencing”, but detailing later that her mother asked her that he left home “upon hearing rumors from the family environment” that “there was a relationship between the two.” This incorporated ‘a
objectively distorting ingredient in the asserted conclusion that the attempted autolysis was because of sexual abuse to impute the accused ».
The young woman later returned to the home of her mother and the accused “voluntarily” and resumed “the relationship” with him “maintaining full sexual relations” to such an extent that she became pregnant by him. «
Although the accused asked her to continue with the pregnancy, she decided to have an abortion “, a reflection of a strong personality, “Which does not seem to fit the profile of a girl subjected to the whim of her stepfather,” determined the acquittal.
The attitude of the complainant threw “many doubts”
The judgment breaks down other aspects of interest into 43 pages, such as the fact that it did not consider it to be proven that the complainant used drugs incited by the accused.
Both in the statement of the stepdaughter under investigation and by reference to the coroner, she admitted “that she used cocaine before” initiating sexual contacts with her stepfather, contrary to what she stated during the trial.
The ruling also determined that there was other information in the young woman’s testimony that was incompatible with a relationship based on coercion and threats. The speaker described that she, despite the fact that she met another boy with whom she began a relationship “by marrying and jointly acquiring a home in Vecindario, thereby distancing herself from the defendant’s immediate surroundings,” continued to maintain “the relationship with him and the defendants. sexual contacts, even without using a condom. ‘ Even more “surprising” seemed to the Chamber “that he met him every three months or so in a hotel to have sexual relations”, since the Court did not manage to understand “what prevented the complainant from refusing all this” . Nor did he find an explanation for the fact that, when the stepfather suffered a heart attack, the complainant visited him “frequently in the hospital” to such an extent that witnesses “were surprised by the unusual interest” that the young woman had in staying with her stepfather in the room .
The sentence also describes how there were witnesses who claimed to have seen the complainant and the defendant “together walking in a shopping center”, conduct that “again provides an element of uncertainty about the true nature of the relationship between both”, as well as It was “somewhat curious” to the Chamber that this individual “had keys to the house where the complainant and her daughter resided for rent” that she provided.
From this perspective, the behavior displayed by the complainant generated in the Chamber “many doubts about whether this relationship was imposed or, on the contrary, was at all times consensual,” the ruling describes.