He Supreme Court (TS) has issued a ruling through which the sentence to 12 and a half years in prison and the payment of 20,000 euros to the heirs of a transsexual woman whom the defendant murdered at the end of 2020 in Costa del Silencio, in the municipality from Tenerife Arona.
The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal, considering that the previous rulings of the Court and of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC)based on the decision of a Popular Jury, were sufficiently motivated.
At the end of last year, the TSJC partially accepted his appeal and reduced the compensation to family members from 300,000 to 20,000 euros after verifying that the victim did not have an affective relationship or economic dependence with the three brothers.
Therefore, the initial amount was described as “disproportionate” and “excessive” by the Superior Court of the Canary Islands.
The convicted person unsuccessfully raised arguments before the Supreme Court such as that no traces of his or the victim’s DNA were found in the place where the homicide was committed or at his home, that the victim’s clothes were not analyzed and that he had no relationship with her.
He stated that the recording of a security camera in which he is seen transporting the body of the deceased is not sufficient evidence to conclude in a conviction.
He also appealed to the sister’s statement during the trial when she said that the victim was afraid of suffering a violent attack, so the possibility opens that another person would have committed the crime.
The Supreme Court, however, endorses the previous court rulings where it was stated that the evidence put on the table was sufficient to conclude the defendant’s guilt.
The Supreme Court considers that in the first instance a verdict was built on the authorship of the crime that is described as “argumentative, logical, coherent and expressive of the degree of certainty required to base any conviction.”
The TS reproaches the appellant for reiterating the same arguments that he raised before the TSJC and which were dismissed, for which reason it concludes that the Jury’s criteria were “sufficiently reasonable and motivated” to justify the ruling.
Although it is accepted that there is no direct evidence of strangulation, immediately afterward, appeal is made to what was stated by a witness who was with the victim and the convicted person and who left them alone when she left the premises, located in the El Chaparral Shopping Center.
In the recordings it is not seen that anyone else entered the bar and then it is observed how the appellant drags the corpse, in which evidence was appreciated that he tried to defend himself from the attack.
“These facts stand as the most logical and reasonable option and, in the case, are supported by direct evidence and sufficient evidence to conclude it, added by the lack of any convincing explanation on the part of the defendant,” confirms the Supreme Court.
The rejection of the defense of intoxication by drugs and alcohol is also supported by indicating that “the ingestion of substances that affect the capacities of the individual requires an effective accreditation not only of the consumption but also of the decrease of the faculties, which in the present case does not happen”.
At the end of December 2020, Jordi CA, born in Soria, invited the victim and another person to a place that he ran and which was actually a cultural association that functioned as karaoke, and which at that time was closed to the public.
The victim and the convicted person were with the witness for several hours consuming alcoholic beverages until the latter left the place where the other two remained.
Then, “for reasons that are not accredited”, both got into an argument that led to an attack on the woman, whom, “with the intention of ending her life”, he hit “repeatedly and violently”. , to finally strangle her to death.
Then, the investigated hid the corpse in the aforementioned establishment and in the early hours of the morning he dragged it wrapped in a blanket to one of the interior corridors of the shopping center, where it was finally located days later in a state of decomposition.
The convicted man said that they had consumed alcohol and hashish and that for this reason he did not remember anything of what happened.
However, this version contradicted the one stated in court when he assured that several people confronted the woman for economic reasons and that he tried to defend her, despite which they ended his life. He attributed the discovery of the body and its transfer to a casual event when he went to clean his premises.
