The Supreme Court has ordered a father to compensate a man he beat and caused minor injuries after he made lewd comments about his underage daughter and touched her chest.
In a sentence, the Criminal Chamber of the high court has dismissed the appeal of the father, who alleged that he had acted in a "state of obstinacy or outburst", moved by a "natural reflex" to try to separate the aggressor, for a matter of form. of his daughter, who had just been sexually abused.
The Chamber has also corroborated the conviction of the Alcalá de Henares court for the minor's aggressor for a crime of sexual abuse: a fine of six euros a day for twenty months and a one-year restraining order from the victim.
The events date back to the afternoon of October 24, 2016, when a man approached a woman and her daughter, then 17 years old, who were in the center of Estremera (Madrid) and told them "good aunts, I I was fucking you."
Then he touched the minor's left breast with his open hand without her consent and "with a lewd mood", despite having been recriminated by the mother.
It was then that the father of the minor, who was in the vicinity, addressed the man to reproach him for his attitude, alerted by the screams of the women.
According to the account of the facts, the subject replied that he was doing what he wanted "from the balls" and then a struggle began between the two men.
The father, who dodged a blow from the stalker, delivered a "strong punch" to the face of his daughter's assailant, who fell to the ground with a mild head injury and another costal injury, a fracture of the floor of the right eye socket and a wound in the eyebrow for which he needed suture with loose stitches and approximation stitches.
The Criminal Court number 4 of Alcalá de Henares (Madrid) sentenced in 2021 in the first instance the father of the minor, accused of a crime of injury, to pay a fine of six euros a day for seven months.
After the alleged abuser appealed, the Provincial Court of Madrid also punished him with compensation for the days it took him to heal from his injuries and the man was on leave, as well as for the consequences that the punch could have caused him. .
The case has reached the Supreme Court, which has rejected the father's appeal for not respecting a matter of form: he alleged that he acted by a "natural reflex" as a "passionate reaction" to the recently committed sexual assault on his daughter and which caused his "loss of control" and his backlash.
Mitigating that, even recognized by the jurisprudence as long as the reaction is consistent with the fact that motivates it, the high court has dismissed this time because it was not contemplated in the account of proven facts.
