The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has confirmed the acquittal of a man accused of a crime of omission of the duty to help his partner, who died of a heart attack in Alicante shortly after he left her alone, unwell in his car, despite the fact that he “realized” the seriousness of the situation.
The court considers that the accused's conduct is "especially reprehensible from an ethical level", but adds that "the failure to comply with a generic duty of solidarity is not enough to consider the crime of omission of the duty of assistance committed."
The proven facts show that the accused and the woman, who had a romantic relationship, had agreed to meet and drove with their respective vehicles to the vicinity of the Alicante Mortuary, where he parked his vehicle and drove hers to a nearby bar. where they had a drink. Later, in the same vehicle and driven by him, they went to a motel.
As soon as she entered the room at 6:45 p.m., the woman felt unwell, dizzy and nauseated, and they decided to leave at 7:05 p.m. The accused drove the car to where the woman was, reclined her seat and opened the window.
Around 7:40 p.m., when they arrived near the Mortuary, the accused got out of the car and remained for a few minutes next to the woman who continued to feel unwell and was sitting with her torso forward and her head on her legs. “Aware of the seriousness and persistence” that she was taking on the situation, he left the place in her vehicle, leaving her alone, according to the proven facts.
A security guard found the woman's lifeless body in the same position in which the accused left her around 9:45 p.m.-10:00 p.m. She had died around 9:30 p.m. from an acute myocardial infarction.
A Jury Court of the Provincial Court of Alicante sentenced the accused as the author of a crime of omission of the duty to help to six months of fine with a daily fee of 4 euros (720 euros) and to pay compensation of 30,000 euros to the woman's relatives for moral damages. The Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community annulled this sentence and acquitted the man of the crime for which he was convicted in the instance.
The Supreme Court rejects the appeal filed by the private prosecution, to which the Public Prosecutor's Office joined, in which it maintained that the proven facts reveal a situation of danger to the life of the woman who was known by the accused who Despite this, he decided to omit the assistance he was obliged to provide, leaving the place.
The Chamber considers that the facts that are declared proven do not allow the presence of the inexcusable assumptions of typicality to be identified with the necessary clarity. He considers that "not even the symptoms of indisposition - dizziness and nausea - that the woman presented at the time the man left..." allowed a situation of serious and obvious danger to her life to be represented - remember that it is ruled out in the legal basis that "prior to that episode that she presented any symptoms of a heart condition that were known to the accused," the court emphasizes in its ruling, presented by Judge Javier Hernández.
He adds that “nor is a criminally relevant situation of homelessness described. Very, in particular, the circumstances that explain why Mrs. herself did not request medical assistance by telephone during the period that elapsed from the beginning of the symptoms of indisposition - around 7:00 p.m. - until the moment in which the accused left the hospital. place - around 7:40 p.m. - when, at the same time, it is declared proven that during that time lapse she did not lose consciousness at any time.
The sentence includes a dissenting opinion from Judge Julián Sánchez Melgar in which he expresses his disagreement with the majority's opinion and defends that the appeal of the private prosecution should be upheld and, consequently, sentencing the accused to a fine as the author of a crime. crime of omission of the duty of relief.
In his vote he affirms that in the case examined all the requirements that make up this crime are met: “first, that the person providing assistance is in a situation of manifest and serious danger; Without a doubt the situation was so serious in the case prosecuted that he died a little more than an hour after the accused left her; second, that said person is helpless; The woman was in serious condition in an inhospitable place; third, that the obligated person knows that said situation exists; The account of events undoubtedly says that this was the case; fourth, that he has the capacity, without risk to himself or others, to provide help personally or to demand help from third parties, and in this case there was no element, in my opinion, that would prevent him from doing so.”
