Two local police officers from Estepona, Juan Carlos G. and Vicente Julián P., sexually abused an 18-year-old girl, taking advantage of their authority status and that the girl was drunk. The policemen, still on duty, intimidated her, went to her home and pressured her to go with them. Since they couldn’t, they took the house keys, went up to her apartment and there one of them touched her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. After her, the other penetrated her vaginally, in both cases without consent. The victim suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome and required pharmacological and psychotherapeutic medical treatment.
For these acts they have been sentenced to two years in prison and disqualified from being a police officer for the duration of their sentence. However, they will not go to jail. The Provincial Court of Malaga has condemned them as perpetrators of a crime of sexual abuse, as a result of an agreement between the Prosecutor’s Office, private prosecution and the convicted, that the judges can only “abide by”, according to judicial sources. There was no trial thanks to this settlement. Later, he has granted them the benefit of suspending the execution of the sentence.
Two steps were necessary to reach this result. First, a significantly reduced sentence with respect to the initial request of the private prosecution (33 years) and the Prosecutor’s Office (30 years). Both agreed to qualify the facts as abuse and not as sexual assault, avoiding trial. Later, the judges agreed to suspend the execution of the sentence.
The magistrates base it on the fact that no one opposes the suspension, that the abusers have already compensated the victim and on the “low probability” that they will repeat the offense. But the president of the section himself, in a dissenting opinion, rejects this criterion: he believes that these facts, on the contrary, reveal a “pronounced criminal dangerousness in their authors”, who carried out a “very planned action” as public servants. . And he adds: the compensation for civil liability, 80,000 euros, has not been paid by the police, but by his parents.
Sentence, advanced by El Periódico and to which elDiario.es Andalucía has had access, was issued on April 26, and the order that frees them from jail is from May 10.
Penetration of a drunk girl and taking advantage of her police status
The sentence recounts how during the night of June 9 to 10, 2018, the victim and two friends went out to party in Estepona, where the three had arrived from Madrid to celebrate that they had completed the Baccalaureate. Between the three of them they drank a bottle of rum with Coca Cola, and continued celebrating in a nightclub until the victim, who was not a regular drinker, ended up being especially affected. She “she was staggering and had trouble speaking fluently, extremes all visible to anyone’s eyes.”
Around 5.45 they left the club and got into the car of one of the friends, heading to the summer apartment of the girl’s family, where they slept. But shortly after leaving, a local police car stopped them. After making them get out, the two policemen told them that they could not take the vehicle. Later, they asked for the victim’s mobile phone, “coming to tell her that she had two options, go with them or that they go to her house,” according to the sentence. They then called a taxi to take them to the apartment.
23 minutes later, the police officers showed up at the apartment, still dressed in uniform. They finished their shift at 6:30. The boys waited downstairs, afraid that not following the instructions of the policemen could have consequences. When they arrived, the police told the victim to go with them, but she and her friends refused. So one of the policemen, who took the keys from one of the boys, ordered them to go upstairs.
Once there, the two police officers snorted several lines of cocaine. After getting the young woman to undress and lie down on the kitchen counter, one of them began to touch her breasts “to then introduce several fingers into the young woman’s vagina, pushing the tampax inside”, at which point one of the The friends left the house and went to a nearby bar to tell what was happening, while the second aggressor (alone alone with the victim) culminated his purpose: “In a passive attitude, without putting up resistance, assuming that another episode of sexual abuse and despite not wishing to maintain intimate relations, under the situation of superiority that police status gave the accused, she was vaginally penetrated by Juan Carlos without a condom and without consent.”
From the 30-year request to the agreement between the parties and the president’s discrepancy
The sentence and the order have ended up freeing the perpetrators of these acts from a prison sentence, despite the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office initially requested 30 years in prison. The written agreement between the Prosecutor’s Office, the private prosecution and the convicted has been decisive. The agreement classifies the facts as sexual abuse (not as assault) and applies the “highly qualified” mitigation of damage repair. It has also weighed that neither the Prosecutor’s Office nor the accusation were opposed to suspending the sentence, provided that the accused carry out a “sexual education” program.
However, the president of the Court himself flatly rejected the arguments that will serve the convicted to avoid jail: the two police officers had no record, were sentenced to a sentence not exceeding two years in prison and paid civil liability with the bail money. But those are the minimum requirements and should not apply automatically, says the judge. “In a state of law, sentences cry out to be fulfilled” in their own terms and the opposite is exceptional.
The facts are “very serious” and reveal “accused criminal dangerousness in their authors”, according to the dissenting magistrate. While his two companions conclude that “there is little probability” that the convicts will commit a similar crime again “due to the very particular characteristics that concur in it”, the president of the Court says that “there is no data that allows a low probability prognosis. “Ignore the undersigned what are those “characteristics so particular” of the fact that allow such an assertion.”
The dissenting magistrate rebels against the assessment that the two police officers made an effort to repair the damage. “Nothing is further from reality”, because his parents did it to guarantee his provisional freedom. And finally, he warns that the fact that everyone agrees to suspend the sentence does not exempt the judges from making their own analysis. “Very important values are compromised, especially the general values of any society to prevent the commission of crimes such as the one that has been condemned and the particular one of defense and protection of women and their decision-making capacity.”