The Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has ratified the sentence to a woman to one year of jail and the payment of 10,000 euros for moral damages for being responsible for a crime of slander to him secretary of two investigative courts from the capital of Tenerife for seven years.
However, the incomplete defense of mental disorder is taken into account, for which reason he is also forced to undergo psychiatric treatment during that time. The penalty is based on the continuous complaints and numerous actions against the lawyer for having intervened in two criminal proceedings against him.
These actions were carried out with the purpose of attributing to the accused “numerous criminal and seriously vexatious and degrading behaviors, knowing that the statements were fictitious and seriously violating the honor, honesty, professionalism and good name and reputation ”.
The defendant had already been sentenced in 2021 for a crime of habitual physical and mental abuse towards two women with the prohibition of approaching one of them within 500 meters or communicating with them through any means.
Subsequently, three other people filed a new complaint during the processing of which the same restraining order was issued, although the complaint finally ended in an acquittal since the complainants availed themselves of their right not to testify during the trial.
The woman is credited with being “fully aware” of the significance of her actions against the secretary, the consequences of her statements and their complete lack of certainty.
The defendant, “in an unfounded and seriously infringing manner against the fame and reputation of the injured party, has held him responsible for various procedural actions directed towards him.”
Specifically, she accused him of manipulating, hiding and distracting evidence in the processes in order to harm her and using court emails or telephone calls for this.
For example, in one of these messages, he asked that one of the processes be paralyzed by accusing the secretary of “seriously” violating his constitutional rights with “fraudulent procedural manipulation.”
For this reason, he requested the annulment of the proceedings for “unconstitutional, perverse manipulation, abuse of power, since he, and no one else but him, is the one who subtracts favorable evidence of forensic legal medicine from the case.”
On another occasion, he attributed him to making decisions that do not correspond to him on behalf of and representing judges and prosecutors, “skipping the same procedural law and even the criminal judge and superior court clerk, even going over the same Provincial Court.”
Statements that the Chamber considers were made with the sole intention of attacking and attacking the honor and good name of the lawyer.
Once again he managed to contact by phone an official from the court where the defendant worked and at that moment he began to despise and verbally assault him and accuse him of making his life miserable for seven years.
On another occasion, he said that he was responsible for “harassment, prevarication and clear abuse of power” and for using his position for a “spurious, abject and immoral” purpose, and therefore, to carry out criminal behavior and usurp functions of the magistrate. .
The Court considers that at no time did the convicted person present any evidence to support these accusations, “not even as a mere suspicion”, nor were they generic, vague or analogical attributions.
However, the reports prepared by specialists and forensics presented in previous processes were taken into account, in which it was pointed out that the woman presented an anomaly or psychic alteration that limited her vision of the facts and self-control, which does not prevent her from being aware of their actions.
This would explain the defendant’s obsession with the judicial lawyer, although “it does not exclude the existence of knowledge of the falsity of the accusations or the proliferation of conduct marked by his reckless disregard for the truth, especially when there is no data that endows consistency to these alleged convictions of the defendant.”
The only thing that the Court changed in the initial sentence was to reduce the fine to five months and twenty-five days with a daily quota of 6 euros as a way of suppressing the penalty of disqualification instead of imprisonment. This decision is appealable before the Supreme Court.
