The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León (TSJCyL) has upheld the appeal of a man convicted of groping a minor under 14 years of age and has revoked the ten-year prison sentence he had received. imposed by the Provincial Court of Burgos for crimes of sexual assault.
The Chamber understands that the minor incurs in “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” when narrating that the defendant, now acquitted, approached her twice on the street when she was with her aunt and sexually assaulted her in March 2019, according to sources reported today of the High Court.
«It is highly surprising that the described action was carried out in the middle of the street, in full view, knowledge and patience of all passers-by and, especially, of those who accompanied the little girl at that time and that nobody said anything; and that both XXXX (the aunt) and her daughter XXX (her cousin), have also categorically denied their reality.
And in relation to the second of the events -the one that she claims to have taken place in a bank located in front of the supermarket and later in the doorway of a nearby house-, there is also a contradiction between what she declared and what was maintained by her aunt and her cousin, who say they did not leave her alone outside the establishment, “says the sentence.
In addition, it adds that “it also seems surprising that when the accused was introduced in a doorway to consummate the voluptuous touching and stop him in his attempt due to the appearance of a neighbor, she did not say or do anything to prevent it or, what is more striking, has not been brought to testify to corroborate the version of the complainant.
The magistrates also believe the “barely concise” statement of the girl’s father is insufficient and revoke the conviction, due to doubts about the defendant’s guilt. In this sense, they explain that the Court “does not take into account in its sentence the statements” of the aunt and the cousin “based on the animosity they affirm they have” towards the minor, “concluding, even, the interrogation of this the latter when he claims to want the acquittal» of the accused being the son of a friend of his.
In this regard, the TSJ magistrates argue that “without prejudice to the fact that we do not have to equate that desire -which is otherwise logical given the knowledge he had of his family- with the falsification of his statement, these testimonies do not deserve this Room neither more nor less credit than the rest and it is possible to deduce that presumed interest that is attributed to them with an alignment of the same with the reality of the facts and that possible animosity that is attributed to them towards their cousin and niece to the interposition of a It denounces that they are considered malicious and based on totally non-existent facts.
For this reason, they conclude that “all of the foregoing is revealing, in our opinion, of the existence of more than reasonable doubts about the reality of the reported facts, doubts that must be at stake, based on the provisions of article 741 LECrim, in favor of the accused and determine the acquittal of the same.
