The Supreme Court (TS) has reduced from ten years and one month to nine years and one month in prison the sentence of a man for sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl in a town in Albacete, in application of the law of only yes is if.
The events occurred between December 2015 and September 2016 when the convicted person began a relationship with the minor, to whom he provided two phone cards, to hold conversations and exchange messages on WhatsApp, taking advantage of the fact that not only was he a friend of the mother’s but also that the minor was a friend of his children.
In this way, he began to gain her trust “with the intention of making her believe that he loved her and achieve a sexual relationship,” says the sentence, to which EFE has had access.
The resolution gives an account of the conversations of sexual content between the two as well as the sexual encounters they had at the convicted person’s house, to which they agreed trying that no one saw them and which increased from June 2016 when the minor, who I was 12 years old, finished the school year.
That was the case until in September a friend of the mother found out about the relationship and notified her. She immediately reported the facts.
The Albacete Court sentenced him to ten years and one month in prison for a continued crime of sexual abuse with the aggravating circumstance of breach of trust and the mitigation of repairing the damage and undue delay, a ruling that was ratified by the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla la Mancha.
But now the Supreme Court lowers the sentence by one year in application of the Law of only if it is yes because in this case it is more beneficial for the prisoner, so that it stays at nine years and one month.
However, apart from this technical question, the high court rejects all the allegations of the convicted person who “not only took advantage of the very marked difference in age with the minor -almost 34 years-, but also of the frank accessibility to her, based on trust and situational facilities -family gatherings, intense contacts with their own children, small town- to enter the girl’s daily life”.
All of this, he adds, “enabled him to maintain frequent communications of sexual content with this and also arrange numerous meetings in a local house, where they had sexual relations”, on several occasions with penetration.
That is why he says that “in addition to seriously and irreducibly infringing the generic ethical and moral obligations of not harming others and, especially, an eleven-year-old girl, he took intense advantage of a personal and affective relational framework that linked him with the minor to carry out his criminal plan”.
