The Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of La Rioja has confirmed the reviewable permanent prison for Francisco Javier Almeida for the treacherous murder of Álex, a 9-year-old boy, in the Rioja municipality of Lardero, on October 28, 2021.
As reported this Thursday by the TSJ of La Rioja, in a note, the Civil and Criminal Chamber has fully confirmed the sentence of the Provincial Court, which sentenced Almeida to permanent reviewable prison for a crime of murder and 15 years of imprisonment. jail for another sexual assault.
The facts were prosecuted by a jury, in the La Rioja Court, last April, which unanimously issued a guilty verdict against the defendant for both crimes.
The Chamber has rejected the allegations presented by the defendant’s defense attorney on the 4th, at an oral hearing in Logroño, who requested in his appeal the application of the mitigating factors of confession and damage reparation.
The appeal also proposed that the aggravating circumstance of treachery be excluded on the understanding that the child’s death was “circumstantial” because the accused did not “have a preconceived plan to kill” and because, when the death occurred, Almeida “went out looking for aid”.
The Chamber has dismantled the arguments of the defense and has concluded in its judgment that his intention was to cause the death of the child and has not considered that it was something accidental or a reckless death. To do this, he has argued that the defendant grabbed the minor’s neck from behind, with extreme pressure and covered his mouth until he suffocated.
The difference in size between the aggressor and the victim and the defendant’s decision to take the minor home and eliminate the possibility of escape, defense or request for help, leave no doubt that his intention was to cause his death, according to failure.
It has also warned the defense that the argument of treachery was not raised in the first instance, so it cannot be argued in the appeal, since it robs the rest of the parties that have intervened in the right to the principle of contradiction. prosecution of this case.
Regarding the crime of sexual assault, the court ruling indicates that the defendant, throughout the process, did not make a truthful statement when saying that the child wanted to have sexual relations voluntarily; He modified the version of events on several occasions and introduced false elements by alleging that he drank alcohol, when it has been proven that he did not.
In addition, it believes that the basic requirement to apply the mitigation of confession is not met because “no statement by the accused constituted a relevant contribution to the investigation, nor did it expedite or facilitate the course of the process.”
The defense, in its appeal, alluded to the letter that Almeida addressed to the prison chaplain, in which he claimed to be the one who had killed Álex, but the TSJ of La Rioja indicates that the defendant availed himself of his right not to testify during all the preliminary investigation and only testified in the trial.
This letter, which he did not address to any police or judicial authority, “did not in the least facilitate the work of investigating the facts,” according to the sentence.
On the other hand, the defense argued that the mitigation of reparation for the damage should be considered because the defendant went to the stairs of his building with the child in his arms to ask for help and confess what happened and had no intention of fleeing.
The Chamber has affirmed that “the child was murdered with atrocious violence”, therefore “there was no possible reparation for the damage brutally caused” and “it is evident that here there is no possible restoration after death, it is not possible to reduce the effects of death”.
Almeida, in his appeal, also raised the breach of the “in dubio pro reo” principle, to which the sentence ensures that “if there is factual doubt, this must benefit the defendant, but when the doubt is in the instance judge and not any of the parties.” “The trial court did not express any doubt and based its factual conclusion on the evidence carried out in plenary,” he stressed.
This decision of the TSJ of La Rioja can be appealed before the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.
