The First Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has acquitted a defendant accused of sexually assaulting a minor when she was eight years old in her father's house in Tahíche. Given the resolution, which is not final, an appeal can be filed.
The reported events date back to the months of May and August 2017, when the accused Juan José Saavedra stayed to sleep in the garage of a friend's house in Tahíche. In the same room also slept his friend's daughter, a minor, who at that time was eight years old, her older brother and her two stepbrothers.
The Court points out that "there is not enough evidence" against Juan José Saavedra, defended by the Fuenmayor Abogados firm, to "undermine the presumption of innocence" and "reasonably justify an accusatory pronouncement."
The Court has indicated that "it has not been proven" that "at some point during the night", the accused approached the girl's mattress, turned her over and put his hand inside the minor's pants, rubbing her genital area and inserting one of his fingers into her vagina and that this caused the minor to wake up from the pain. Nor has it been proven that the accused took the girl's hand and took it towards his penis to masturbate.
The evidence presented at trial focused on the testimony of the underage victim, who was 14 years old at the time she testified. Despite the fact that "the minor's testimony has been firm and persistent in her accusation against the accused", without other evidence "it is not enough to give it decisive evidentiary validity", the Chamber stated in the ruling to which La Voz has had access.
The Chamber highlights that the minor "adequately places and contextualizes the facts", in addition to the fact that "there is no record, nor is it alleged" that someone has forced her to tell the story and that the time it takes the victim to report "in no way undermines the credibility and reliability of the testimony."
In addition, he continued, pointing out that in the case "there are a series of external circumstances that prevent the testimony from being given the necessary sufficiency and conclusiveness", so it "lacks" the necessary peripheral corroboration. While he has pointed out that the testimonies of the father, mother and teacher are credible, but that they "are limited to exposing the minor's story."
The same thing happens with the psychological-forensic report that "concludes that there are no indications of simulation or over-simulation", which narrates "own and sufficient criteria and indications to consider it probably credible" and that shows "a psychic footprint compatible" with the reported events.
However, he states that the psychological report "omits any reference" to other cases of sexual abuse experienced by the minor and produced by other authors. "The minor has been detected some important psychological and emotional after-effects", but "it is also not clear that they originate from the direct attack against her indemnity and sexual freedom attributed to the accused" or that they are "connected with other alternative experiences" because it is not raised in the psychological report.
The Court states that "the damage to abused childhood projects its negative effects for much longer than is typical of another type of criminal offense", but that "the right to the presumption of innocence knows no modulations."
The Public Prosecutor's Office requested for the then accused, the penalty of 12 years in prison and a restraining order that prohibited him from approaching less than 500 meters from the minor for 20 years, as well as disqualification from working with children for a period of 17 years. He also requested the man to compensate the girl with 6,000 euros.
