The Second Section of the Provincial Court has confirmed a 10-month prison sentence imposed by the Criminal Court number 1 of Arrecife on a man for a crime of gender violence, dismissing an appeal by the defendant. Likewise, he must compensate the victim with 270 euros, whom he may not approach within 500 meters or communicate with for a period of three years.
"The appeal is only based on the particular appreciation of the party regarding the lack of correspondence between the injury report and the aggression described in the sentence, an appreciation that does not respond to any expert evidence and with which it intends to ignore that it is the defendant himself who admits the reality of a struggle with the complainant by having snatched her mobile phone, which in reality only reinforces the credibility of the victim's testimony, who recounts a reaction from the defendant that does correspond, even in part, with his own statements," the court states in a sentence dated in September.
Thus, it considers that there was no "error in the assessment of the evidence" by the judge of first instance as the defendant argued in his appeal, who stated that it was enough to examine the initial statement of the complainant "to corroborate the reasonable doubts" that he had assaulted her. A statement that he justified in that "the forensic report is not coherent with his description of what happened, since it is surprising that with an aggression of such magnitude she did not suffer more serious injuries".
The "vagueness" of the accused compared to a "firm" statement from the victim
In this regard, the Second Section of the Provincial Court also highlights that the statements of the accused in the trial were characterized "by their vagueness and their contradiction". "On the one hand, he tries to hide that he acts because of jealousy and, on the other hand, his behaviors precisely make that motivation clear, while the victim's statement appears as clear, firm and coherent at all times," he adds.
In his appeal, the defendant also alleged that the right to the presumption of innocence had been violated, stating that "there is no evidence in the case, regardless of the forensic report, suitable to understand that the aforementioned fundamental right has been destroyed", rejecting that it can be the statement of the complainant.
"The statement of a single witness, even if it is the victim herself, is perfectly capable of destroying the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence", responds the Second Section of the Provincial Court, which ratifies the sentence issued in the first instance, in which the defendant was also imposed the deprivation of the right to possess and carry weapons for two years.
