The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has ratified the acquittal of a man accused of commissioning a third party to end the life of his ex-wife in Tenerife.
The Canarian high court dismisses the appeal against the original ruling, of the fifth section of the Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, in which the defendant was exonerated from the crime of proposition of homicide.
In said sentence, it is considered as proven facts that the accused and his ex-wife have “relationship problems” due to the custody of their daughters, aged 15 and 13, as well as due to the management of the marital property that has not yet been liquidated, consisting of the collection of rents from various properties.
It is also stated that the defendant has two final convictions for a crime of threats in the field of gender-based violence and family abandonment, and that he was later acquitted of a crime of violation and several complaints were filed against him for violence. of gender presented by his ex.
The TSJC points out in its ruling that the private prosecution, brought by the defendant’s ex, “holds on” to the two criminal convictions that weigh on him, “but forgets” that there are other judicial acquittals or even filings in a very preliminary phase. .
And it abounds that despite the fact that from the statements of several witnesses, the alleged offer and the current partner of the complainant, “certain incriminating evidence” can be seen, these “neither have a minimum consistency, nor are they credible nor do they appear corroborated by peripheral data of any objective nature, beyond the clear animosity” of the woman towards the accused.
He underlines that these testimonies “appear to be influenced by the interests of an economic nature that underlie the conflictive relationship and that is maintained in the face of the lack of liquidation of the patrimonial regime, and in the controversial exercise of guardianship and custody” of the daughters of both.
The Canarian high court concludes that there is no evidence that there was “a proposal or invitation” from the accused to get rid of his ex-wife “sufficiently serious and minimally effective so that it acquires the necessary criminal relevance.”
At the oral hearing, the defendant reported that he knew that third person to whom he allegedly made this offer because he worked on his brother’s farm, and that he confessed that his ex-wife had offered him 700 euros if he testified against him, and that if I gave him this amount of money he would not do it.
Regarding the testimony of this third person, the TSJC indicates that “it is not apt to undermine the presumption of innocence” of the accused, and that the support he finds in the complainant “does not strengthen him, but quite the opposite, given the spurious interest shown by it and the clear animosity evidenced”.
In addition, he considers “absurd and senseless” that he waited two years to denounce these alleged orders, on at least three occasions, and did so just after they told him not to return to work in the company of the defendant’s brother due to loss of trust. after the disappearance of work material.
To all this he adds the testimony of one of the daughters of the couple, who declared that one night, in which she pretended to be asleep while in the back seat of the car, she witnessed how her mother gave this person money while told him not to “fail” him and that “you know what you have to say in court”
