The Supreme Court confirms 15 years in prison for a father for continued sexual assault on his daughter, whom he left pregnant

The court clarifies that the ruling is not related to the "only yes is yes" law because the sentence imposed, the maximum, coincides with the current one

MADRID, 13 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence to 15 years in prison for a father for a crime of continued sexual assault with violence and intimidation and carnal access to his underage daughter, whom he left pregnant after non-consensual sexual relations that he had with she.

In a sentence dated November 30, collected by Europa Press, the Criminal Chamber makes it clear that this ruling is not affected by the so-called 'law of only yes is yes', since the sentence imposed on the convicted person was the maximum legally provided for (15 years) in the previous regulation, which coincides with that currently established in the Penal Code.

Thus, the magistrates of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convicted person against the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla la Mancha that confirmed, in addition to the prison sentence, all the previous pronouncements of the Provincial Court of Toledo .

Specifically, the court ruling declared the paternity of the child as a non-marital child of the appellant and imposed on him the penalty of deprivation of parental authority over the child-grandchild, as well as the prohibition to approach less than 500 meters and to communicate with him and his daughter for 20 years.

The sentence of the Provincial Court of Toledo imposed the obligation to participate in a training program of sexual education, the payment of compensation of 25,000 euros to his daughter, for non-material damage, and the payment of alimony in favor of the less than 250 euros per month.

The proven facts indicate that the father began to sexually touch his daughter without her consent, when he was left alone with her, since the minor was 12 years old. He even ordered the girl on one occasion, when she was 14 years old, to have sexual contact with her brother, three years her junior, while he watched the scene without them seeing him.

The magistrates report that, from the age of 16, the father began to have full sexual relations with her, who agreed to his requirements due to the attacks and threats that he insistently directed at her.

The minor did not tell anyone what happened due to the fear that her father inspired in her; fear increased by the relationship of dependency, kinship and ancestry that he maintained with her, which made it difficult to end this situation.

As a result of the non-consensual sexual relations she had with him, she became pregnant. Upon hearing the news from her, her father ordered her to lie to her mother and her brother about the paternity of the baby, to which she agreed due to the fear she felt towards her parent. When she turned 21, she reported these events to the Civil Guard, for which she has needed psychological assistance.

The Chamber flatly rejects the defendant's argument that the full sexual relations he had with his daughter were consensual, so there would have been no violence or intimidation. In the same way, it proclaims the validity of the testimony of his daughter, whose corroboration and persistence had been questioned in the appeal.

In the sentence, a presentation by magistrate Leopoldo Puente, the court concludes that the contested ruling takes into account, for the purpose of claiming that the presumption of innocence has been distorted, which it describes as "coherent and detailed account of the victim herself, without justifiably noting any reason to glimpse that it could be animated by any kind of spurious purpose".

The Supreme Court adds that, in addition, it verifies that said story appears confirmed, in peripheral but very significant extremes, in relation to the frequently brutal treatment that his father gave him, both by the testimony of his brother and especially by that of his mother. , to the point of causing certain injuries.

It is also taken into account that when the minor was only 14 years old, she had certain contacts with a sexual content and meaning with her brother, three years younger, which were somehow witnessed by her father, (who would not have intervened to prevent them at all) as and as confirmed by the brother of the victim that his father had assured him.

"And, of course, it appears fully justified, to the point that the defendant himself explicitly acknowledges it, that he himself repeatedly had full sexual relations with his daughter, despite more than pretext that this always occurred when she was 16 years old or older and with her full consent. Full consent that, it goes without saying, is hardly consistent with the aforementioned situation of sustained violence that the defendant dispensed to his daughter, "says the Chamber.

On the other hand, the court also dismissed the appeal filed by the victim, who exercised the private prosecution, in which he requested a sentence for his father for three different crimes instead of for a single continued crime of sexual assault, as agreed. the Audiencia and supported the Superior Court of Justice.

In this regard, the Chamber reasons that the sexual abuse committed when the minor was between 12 and 16 years old is included in the continuing crime of sexual assault with carnal access, and it is not possible to break down both criminal figures, as autonomous continued crimes, in relation to real contest with each other.