The TS lowers the sentence of the sexual offender of a prostitute in Valencia from 13 to 10 years in prison for the "only yes is yes"

It also reduces the penalty for two necessary cooperators of the crime because the new legislation is more favorable

MADRID, 3 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has reduced the sentence of a man who sexually assaulted a prostitute in Valencia from 13 to 10 years in prison while reducing the sentence of the two necessary cooperators for the same crime in application of the well-known law of 'only yes is yes'.

In a sentence, collected by Europa Press, the Criminal Chamber -with the support of the Prosecutor's Office- proceeds to reduce the sentence of the sexual offender, understanding that the new legislation is more favourable, since both the maximum limit and the minimum of the taxable sentence are lower according to the new regulation.

The ruling highlights that, in its report on the incidence in the case of the new law, the Public Prosecutor indicated that the facts attributed to the main defendant had a sentence of between 12 and 15 years in prison foreseen at the time of the facts, while that, at present, after the entry into force of the reform, the penalty is between 7 and 15 years.

In this context, and concurring an analogical mitigating circumstance, the sentence would be between 7 and 11 years, for which reason the Prosecutor's Office understands that it is more favorable, and that, taking into account the concurrent circumstances in the specific act prosecuted, the sentence should be that of 10 years in prison.

The magistrates recall that the court of first instance imposed the sentence of 13 years in prison on the convicted person, that is, individualizing it in an extension very close to half, although already in the upper section, taking into account "the time that the episode lasts that ( the victim) remains in the house without being able to leave it and the environmental violence to which she was subjected by the three defendants".

The Chamber considers that to this must be added, as the Prosecutor's Office does, the circumstances in which the attack took place, immobilizing her, covering her mouth with duct tape and uttering vexatious expressions such as "you are going to do your job bitch".

Thus, the court indicates that, taking into account these aspects -the new penological framework- the seriousness of the act and the circumstances of the culprit, it is considered that the appropriate penalty is 10 years in prison.

The proven facts indicate that the main defendant contracted the services of the victim, who worked as a prostitute, by mobile phone in the early morning of March 14, 2021 in the city of Valencia.

Once the woman arrived at the address indicated by the man, he led her to the living room, where the other two defendants entered, friends of the former and who had been in the house for several hours since a party had been held there.

The woman refused to perform the contracted service in the presence of these two people, the man reacted violently and sexually assaulted her.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court reduces the sentences for the two necessary cooperators of sexual assault because the new law is more favorable. These two reductions, unlike the first, have not been supported by the Prosecutor's Office and have the dissenting particular vote of the magistrate Ana Ferrer, in favor of maintaining the sentences for these two defendants.

Specifically, their sentences are reduced by 1 year, going from 7 to 6 years in prison, in the case of one of the defendants, and 6 years and 6 months to 5 years and 6 months, in the other.

The Chamber explains that the sentence imposed on them would be comparatively more serious than the one that would have corresponded, with the same elements of evaluation, when individualizing it in a penological framework of less seriousness, as is currently applicable since it is a more favorable law, which it is applied precisely for that reason, reducing their sentences by 1 year.

In her dissenting vote, Judge Ferrer points out that she shares the conclusions of her colleagues regarding the reduction of the author's sentence, but disagrees with the reduction for the two necessary cooperators.

And it is that, the judge maintains, the sentence they had not only continues to be taxable with the new law, but, in her opinion, it would be proportional to the circumstances of the event and the perpetrators.