The Provincial Court has sentenced Andrés Vicente Suárez Álvarez to 4 years and one day in prison for a crime of sexual abuse against his political niece, who was 12 years old at the time. In addition, he must compensate the minor with 3,000 and will be prohibited from approaching her within 300 meters for 7 years. To this, the Court has also added another penalty, imposing on the accused 5 more years of supervised release, once the prison sentence is served.
The events occurred in December 2013 in a house in San Bartolomé, where the accused lived with his 90-year-old mother and his partner, who is the victim's biological aunt and was not at home when everything happened. According to the sentence, the accused was in charge of the minor and her younger sister, who was 7 years old at the time. And being in a room with them, "with the intention of satisfying his sexual instincts, he placed his head between the legs" of the victim, "while saying to her, in reference to her genitals: I want to eat everything".
Afterwards, "taking advantage" of the fact that the sister left the room and went downstairs, "he took one of the girl's hands" "and inserted it inside her pants, with the intention that she would touch his penis, which he achieved by pushing the minor's hand down". When she managed to take her hand out, the now convicted man grabbed it again, "brushing his genitals against her several times".
"The family relationship with her aunt has deteriorated"
In its ruling, the Second Section of the Provincial Court considers that the girl's statement was "credible, persistent over time and without incurring contradictions", as was that of her parents. In addition, it emphasizes that "there had been no problem between the accused and the girl" for her to have made this accusation out of "resentment", since in fact "the relationship was very good", and that the minor also did not obtain "any benefit by narrating these events to her parents". "On the contrary", the Court emphasizes, "the family relationship with her aunt, whom the girl told the experts she loved very much, has deteriorated as a result of these events".
And it is that the aunt, who also testified during the trial, stated that "she does not believe what her niece says". However, the sentence emphasizes that when her sister called her by telephone to tell her what her daughter was saying, she turned to her partner asking him: "But what have you done?", as she herself related. Therefore, the Court concludes that "in principle she must have given some credibility to the girl".
As for the mother of the accused, who was in the house when the events occurred, she also testified in her defense. However, the sentence considers that there were "contradictions" between her version and the statement of her son. And although both stated that he did not go upstairs, where the girls were, they stated different things about what he was doing at that time. "Her testimony is not very objective and is not sufficient to discredit the events related" by the victim, the Court concludes. In addition, it points out that the fact that the mother was at home "did not pose any obstacle to the purposes of the accused, since given her advanced age, 90 years, she did not go up to the upper part of the house".
"She burst into tears and told him what happened"
For her part, the mother of the minor related during the trial that when she arrived to pick up her daughters, she was struck by the fact that they were already ready to leave, when it was not usual. And they also did not want to stay to eat with the accused. "She wanted to go home", the sentence states. Afterwards, upon arriving at her home, "when they were putting up the Christmas tree", the girl "burst into tears and told him what happened".
According to the mother, at that time the father of the girls was traveling, so she decided to wait for him to arrive to file the complaint, which was filed on a Friday, four days after the events occurred. "She did not take the girls back to the house of her sister and the accused", the Court emphasizes, which does not share the alleged contradictions that the accused alleged to question the attitude and statements of the complainants.
According to him, "he did not go up to the upper floor of the house all morning" and all he did was shout at them from below to call their attention because they were jumping". In addition, he maintained that his political niece "was angry" and that the complaint responded to "fantasies that the girl was telling, who had had bad grades".
On the other hand, he tried to discredit the minor's version by assuring that a medical problem prevented him from having erections (the girl stated that he had one when he made her touch his genitals). However, the accused's doctor stated during the trial that with the prostate cancer he suffers from it is more difficult, but not impossible, to have an erection. In addition, the Court emphasizes that when the events occurred he had not yet been diagnosed with the disease, and therefore had not yet started treatment, "which is what he stated causes him that lack of erections".
"He has taken advantage of his relationship of superiority"
"There is no doubt for this Court that the accused has taken advantage of his relationship of superiority over the 12-year-old girl and her 7-year-old sister, who were in the accused's house under his care while the mother was working, and this circumstance is what Andrés takes advantage of to abuse the minor", the sentence concludes.
Regarding the penalty, it clarifies that it imposes the "minimum legally foreseen" in terms of imprisonment, since "a higher penalty could be disproportionate" with respect to the events that materialized. Faced with the 4 years of imprisonment imposed, the Prosecutor's Office requested 5 years and 3 months and the private prosecution 7 and a half years. However, the Court does "fully accept" the prosecutor's request regarding the restraining order for seven years, which in this case is higher than the minimum. "We understand that it is necessary to guarantee the tranquility of the victim", he emphasizes.
In addition, he adds those five years of supervised release, which will be applied once the prison sentence is served, provided that this sentence is ratified, since it is still subject to appeal. Regarding the compensation, "it does not appear" that the girl has been left with "any sequelae from what happened", but even so she must receive 3,000 euros from the accused, for the "suffering that the events caused her".
