The Provincial Court of León has sentenced the former councilor of Ponferrada (León) Pedro Muñoz to 16 years and 11 months in prison for four crimes of abuse and one of aggravated injuries on his ex-wife, whom he hit and threw off the terrace of his home. causing serious neurological injuries that make her dependent for the basic activities of life.
This is stated in the ruling sent by the Court of Justice of Castilla y León and echoed by Europa Press. The ruling also indicates that the convicted person must compensate the victim with a total of 1,502,982.33 euros.
In the sentence, the Court acquits the defendant of crimes of attempted homicide, "due to the concurrence of the acquittal excuse of voluntary desistance", also of the crime of threats in the family environment and the minor crime of insults in the family environment. .
However, the Court considers him guilty of a crime of aggravated injuries, with the aggravating circumstances of kinship and discrimination based on gender (12 years in prison), three crimes of family abuse (nine months for the first, nine months for the second and 11 months for the third) and a crime of habitual family abuse (two and a half years in prison).
The magistrates describe in detail a "toxic relationship" marked by the "violent and intimidating behavior" of the politician who physically and psychologically abused his partner from the beginning of their relationship, a relationship in which pushing, hitting, beatings and humiliation were common. .
The sentence, which has already been notified to the parties, considers it proven that on May 27, 2020, after a discussion "the accused with the intention of ending the life of the complainant and, in any case, knowing and assuming the discharges There were possibilities of ending her life if he threw her, he threw her over the balcony or railing that supported the top of the terrace, falling and hitting a well that was in the area and the ground, especially on her head and on her back, leaving her motionless and lying face down on the floor.
"Immediately afterwards, he went down from the terrace to the lower floor of the house and going to the place where she was lying on the ground, he said 'bitch, son of a bitch, have you died yet?', approaching her and attacking her again with kicks, blows and a stick in various parts of the body, especially in the hands and legs," the resolution indicates.
The Chamber, which supports its decision on abundant jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, considers that the events cannot be punished as an attempted murder because it was not a surprise attack.
"There was no treachery not only because before the complainant was thrown off the terrace there had been a previous violent episode between the parties, when she had been attacked and dragged by the legs by the accused to the terrace, attacking her again until finally he threw it into the void, without there being an important qualitative change and without the previous attack having ceased, but also because we are faced with an attack in which there was defensive resistance and struggle between the parties, and this even though the accused had finally overcome the resistance. opposed by his wife, thus managing to break her efforts and throw her from the terrace.
And it also rules out attempted homicide because there is active desistance or repentance since, although the accused's initial intention was to end his wife's life, it was his subsequent actions that prevented the woman's death.
"The accused carried out voluntary, positive and effective acts to avoid the culmination of the death of his wife, which demonstrates his interest in neutralizing what he had previously set in motion to perpetrate the criminal offense, which is why the application of voluntary desistance is mandatory," explains the Court.
"It is true that the injuries suffered by Raquel when she was thrown from the terrace could have caused her death, but it is no less true that the subsequent actions of the accused served decisively to ensure that this ultimately lethal result did not occur; it would have been enough for that to happen. would have been left lying on the ground," he says.
In this regard, the magistrates believe that the accused, "after carrying out these acts with the intention of ending the life of the complainant by carrying out effective and effective acts sufficient to produce that result, and being able to put an end to her life since they were alone in an isolated and solitary place and with the injured person immobile and unable to defend herself, she finally did not want to do so, ceasing her behavior personally and fully voluntarily and repenting of it."
It is considered that the result of her death was thus avoided "by placing her in a gallery of the house, leaving her on the floor in a right lateral ulna position (safety position), placing a cushion under her head, trying to block the hemorrhages." which he had with some towels that he previously took from the bathroom.
Afterwards, he made a phone call to the 112 emergency service asking for help and for them to come and assist his wife because she had fallen and was unconscious, also calling "his friend and his daughter" by phone to come to the farm. and help him and assist him due to the serious condition his wife was in."
As stated in the sentence, the "legal classification of the facts was attempted homicide, but the voluntary action of the aggressor turned out to be effectively impedive and this should lead to the application of the figure of desistance in the attempt or active repentance." which regulates article 16.2 of the Penal Code, either because the accused directly prevented the consummation of the crime, or because with his actions he triggered the actions of third parties, who finally achieved it."
For all this, the judges add, "the exemption from liability for the crime of attempted homicide must be applied, without this preventing the conviction for the crime of aggravated injuries for which he has also been accused."
The complainant's story and the existing peripheral corroborations, the judges emphasize, "are credible and duly supported and allow us to prove that part of the injuries she presents are directly caused by the fall due to the precipitation intentionally caused by the accused."
Faced with the story offered by the accused and the attempts by his defense to discredit the victim's testimony, the judges highlight that "what was demonstrated at the hearing is that the accused after throwing his wife off the terrace and finding her lying on the ground, he attacked her again with kicks and blows and with a stick in various parts of her body, but without the strength and forcefulness that the victim maintains.
The Court considers that the abuse that the woman suffered for years "must be framed as episodes of the patterns of inequality between men and women that the legislator wants to combat. The aggressive behavior of the accused is part of a culture that generates very serious harm to his romantic partner. for the simple fact of being a woman.
The sentence establishes compensation for the victim of 1.5 million euros. As a result of the events prosecuted, the woman, a lawyer by profession, suffers serious consequences. In addition to a paraplegia that keeps her confined to a wheelchair and makes her need help for all the basic activities of daily life, making it impossible for her to carry out any trade or profession.
The sentence is not final and can be appealed before the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León.
