The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has agreed to reduce the sentence of a footballer who is now a fine of 300 euros for headbutting another player during a match and causing a broken tooth.
In principle, the Court attributed him a crime of injuries for which condemned him to pay a fine of 720 euros and face the civil liability that will be established in the execution of the ruling taking into account the damage caused and the dental expenses.
But now in the second instance the Court chooses to reduce the crime to minor injuries and therefore also the amount to be paid.
The defense of the convicted man argued that there was a contradiction between the story of the accusation and the one included in the first instance ruling, in the sense that there are doubts about which tooth was damaged and in fact the numbering 51 is wrong since that tooth does not exist.
The Court responds that this argument does not change what happened, given that the fractured tooth has always been clearly identified both in the judicial order and in the medical report and in the statements of witnesses.
So it would barely be a typographical error, with no major consequences when it came to the convict being able to exercise his right to defense.
It was also argued that no reliable evidence has been provided that the attack took place as reported by the victim and that it was the real cause of the tooth fracture.
In fact, the complainant himself expressed his doubts that the headbutt had its origin in a normal game or a real attack by the convicted person.
The referee’s statement was clear and forceful in pointing out that he was a short distance from the players and saw perfectly how, after an initial clash between the two due to the normal development of the match, the accused then headbutted the victim’s face. .
The Court concludes that it cannot be determined with complete certainty that the blow was the cause of the fracture of the tooth, given that the victim herself has doubts about it and it is not considered that the referee’s version is sufficient to impose a greater sentence.
His testimony proves that there was an attack but not that it was the origin of the damage caused, so finally the Court chose not to force him to pay compensation to the beaten footballer but rather the fine of 300 euros.
