The Second Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has acquitted the teacher from Teguise who was accused of a crime of sexual abuse against a student, although following this trial he faces two other complaints. In fact, Wenceslao P. R. has two open proceedings in Investigating Court Number 4 of Arrecife for similar events, and the magistrate is considering joining both into a single case.
These two new minors registered their complaint at the Civil Guard barracks after seeing the case in the press. Afterwards, the agents transferred it to the Court, on which the instruction now depends.
Regarding the first trial, held on April 21, only three students cited by the defense testified at the hearing, who stated that they had not seen the abuse, and the same was indicated by other teachers and the director of the center. "Serious doubts arise for the Chamber, regarding the way in which the events occurred and, consequently, regarding the guilt of the accused, which must necessarily be resolved in his favor, in application of the principle in dubio pro reo", states the judgment of the Hearing.
During that trial, the prosecutor asked the accused if he had other complaints for similar events, and he ended up confirming that he had also faced one in his previous destination in Gran Canaria. “In Las Palmas they wanted to play me well,” he declared, blaming the deputy director of that center, and assuring that he was not convicted. However, when he was asked if he had not had other subsequent ones, he refused to answer.
Now, from the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands they have confirmed to La Voz that there are up to two open proceedings for similar events. And as also confirmed by the Civil Guard, the complaints had already been filed when this trial was held. Specifically, they were registered shortly after the case first appeared in the press, when the date was set for the hearing (which was initially scheduled for last January, and was later suspended and delayed until April).
"No spurious motive is appreciated in the minor's statement"
“Despite the insistence of the defense, no spurious motive is appreciated in the minor's statement,” the judgment also emphasizes, which recalls that the accused presented the girl as a problematic and “disruptive” student, which was also not confirmed by the rest of the teachers.
“The Chamber does not understand that the minor has lied,” insists the Hearing, which considers that the girl, who was 10 years old when she reported it and 12 when the trial was held, “related her experiences to the Chamber as she remembers them and lived them.” In fact, the two experts who testified at the trial confirmed that her testimony was credible.
However, it concludes that there are doubts about the facts and, “fundamentally, about the sexual nature” and the “libidinous spirit” of the same. Specifically, it focuses on one of the episodes recounted by the minor, which is the only one confirmed by the accused. He admitted that on one occasion he put his leg on the girl's leg, but assured that he did so in response, because she had done the same before.
“The accused himself has recognized educational methods that this chamber does not share, such as placing his leg on top of a ten-year-old girl because (according to the defendant's statements) she would have done it previously,” the judgment states, which questions that attitude, but considers that it does not prove that “libidinous spirit.”
Regarding the other two episodes narrated by the girl, she points out that “they could be understood as sexual in nature”, but points out that her testimony was “extremely imprecise”. In one, she stated that the teacher bit her ear on one occasion. In another, she assured that while in class, he sat next to her and put his hand on her thigh, touching her “private parts”. In this regard, the Hearing emphasizes that in the first trial she only referred to the thigh, and that this last detail was not given until she was expressly asked by the prosecutor.
“Despite the reported events having occurred in the presence of the entire class, other minors have not been proposed as witnesses to relate the existence of touching or behaviors as striking as the teacher sitting (the complainant) on his legs” or “hugging and kissing the girls”, the judgment adds.
“A particular learning dynamic”
The Hearing also recalls that “the defendant himself spoke of a particular learning dynamic”, without using his table and going through the work groups in which he divided the students. And it reproduces the account of some of his classmates, who described him as “closer and more affectionate” than other teachers.
However, he also had to be reprimanded by the director for the vocabulary he used in class, using swear words. “But not for things of a sexual nature or comments to the students,” the judgment then clarifies.
However, in addition to the other two complaints he now faces, he had also had at least one complaint before the Educational Inspectorate in 2018. Reference was also made to it in the trial, although the accused assured that he was not aware of it.
In this regard, the judgment indicates that the complaint that was incorporated into this case denounced the “behavior of the defendant in relation to two minors, referring that he shouts at them, tickles them, that some girls sit on top of the teacher or that he said threatening or offensive comments to the students, even hitting some of them.” However, the ruling adds that “it is not recorded how the administrative file continued” nor that a criminal complaint was filed afterwards.
A year later, in 2019, that first criminal complaint did arrive, which ended up being tried last April and has now ended in acquittal.