The First Section of the Provincial Court of Alicante confirms the acquittal of our client accused of an alleged crime of gender violence.
Our firm has successfully defended a client accused of an alleged crime of gender violence following a complaint filed by his ex-partner..
Our client was acquitted in the first instance, The Sentence being ratified by the First Section of the Provincial Court of Alicante, confirming that the commission of the reported events has not been proven.
The matter was especially complex because it involved a client who had been subjected to a judicial ordeal through complaints of all kinds., both him and his family. Harassment complaints, mistreatment of his youngest daughter, etc., They tried to condition this client's relationship with his youngest daughter.
The acquittal in this type of procedure is of unobjectionable relevance since the article 92.7 of the Civil Code establishes that shared custody will not apply when one of the parents is involved in a criminal process initiated for an attempt on life, physical integrity, the freedom or sexual freedom and indemnity of the other spouse or of the children who live with both. Therefore, The existence of a gender violence procedure is incompatible with a shared custody regime.
In the present matter, The client placed himself in the hands of this professional office from the beginning and throughout the entire procedure., which allowed advice, assistance and support throughout the entire process. This made it possible to collect abundant documentation that would ultimately serve to support his acquittal..
Even when it comes to gender violence procedures, We cannot ignore the right to the presumption of innocence (art. 24.2 C.E.) of any citizen who prevents anyone from being convicted without the existence of a minimum evidentiary activity of charge, valid and sufficient, practiced with all guarantees, that allows us to reasonably affirm the alleged facts and the participation of the accused in them.
In matters of gender violence, the testimony of the victim is especially important., which, as long as a series of requirements that have been jurisprudentially established are met., may be sufficient evidence to undermine the presumption of innocence of the accused. These requirements are: absence of subjective disbelief, verisimilitude and persistence in the incrimination (STS 1961/2002).
In this case, the victim's testimony did not meet these requirements for the following reasons:
-
- Existence of manifest enmity and resentment towards the accused, proven by the high number of complaints filed against him and his family members (up to nine, most archived or dismissed).
- Absence of objective peripheral corroboration, since the only matching testimonies came from relatives directly involved in the conflict, whose impartiality was compromised.
Besides, the abundant documentary provided by this party, which included WhatsApp messages, emails, photographs, etc., allowed us to contradict the version of the complainant and the role allegedly assumed by this, who had claimed to be a constant victim of humiliation and humiliation by the accused.
Relevance of the ruling
The ruling reaffirms an essential principle: A criminal conviction cannot be issued based solely on uncorroborated statements affected by an obvious context of personal and family conflict..
The acquittal obtained means not only avoiding the criminal and personal consequences that would have derived from a conviction, but also an express recognition of the validity of the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence.
In conclusion, The court has considered that the prosecution evidence was insufficient, The testimonials lacked objectivity and the documentary did not corroborate the reported facts., agreeing to the full absolution of our client.
Since the complaint was filed having already initiated a family procedure regarding parent-child measures, the procedure conditioned its development, having prevented our client from exercising joint custody of his minor daughter while the criminal procedure has been in force.. This ruling has made it possible to initiate a procedure to modify measures in order to request shared guardianship and custody..
