The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS) has ratified the 12-year prison sentence and the payment of 20,000 euros to a resident of Lanzarote for a continuous crime of sexual abuse of his partner's daughter since the girl was eight years old.
The victim, born in 2008, suffered these abuses repeatedly by who was then the romantic partner of her mother in two family homes in which they lived between 2016 and 2017.
As the events predate the approval of the so-called 'yes is yes' law, they are classified as a crime of abuse and not sexual assault.
Then, according to the ruling ratified by the Supreme Court, the defendant took advantage of every opportunity when they were alone to carry out touching and also complete sexual assaults without protection, among other practices.
"The minor yielded to these desires given the trust she had in him, since he had assumed the role of biological father," and it would not be until years later when she dared to report the events.
In the first instance, it was found that the victim recounted what happened without intending to harm the defendant, there were no significant contradictions, and all her statements were consistent.
Despite having recounted that one of the episodes was seen by her mother, she denied it, and the fact that on one occasion she said that the abuses began when she was eight years old and on another that it was at three was attributed to an error in transcribing her statement.
She justified that she could not provide the recorded images of some of these episodes with her mobile phone because it fell into the pool and that the daughter of a friend of the mother “screamed like crazy and trembling” saying that the accused had also assaulted her.
Before the Supreme Court, the defendant alleged that the conviction was not based on sufficient evidence and that these were not objective, that the complaint was filed four years after the events allegedly occurred, or that the young woman always had a good academic performance.
He also emphasized that the victim claimed that she had recorded some episodes but these videos never appeared for the reason mentioned; in the absence of gynecological evidence and that the psychological expert report was carried out five years later.
But according to the high court, this test only aimed to determine if there were mental illnesses or fabrications and in fact it was not taken into account when issuing the ruling.
In addition to the prison sentence and the economic sanction imposed, the convicted person must stay away from the victim for a period of 20 years once he leaves prison.
