The Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence of 17 years in prison to two children who left to die "cruelly" and with "absolute neglect" to his mother Sick 76 years old in his house at neglect "totally their most basic needs" of food and hygiene.
The Second Chamber of the High Court rejects the appeals of both convicts against the ruling of the Provincial Court of Tenerife that condemned them to the same penalty that the Supreme Court now confirms for an offense of homicide by commission for omission.
The facts, recounts the sentence, occurred in August 2015 in the neighborhood of Los Gladiolos in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, where the woman lived with her son, her daughter-in-law and her granddaughter.
As the victim's son agreed with his sister, both would share the care tasks of their mother, who for more than fifteen years He suffered from multiple diseases such as osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, urinary incontinence, senile dementia and, even, he had tried to commit suicide twice.
However, despite being aware of her mother's situation, which had worsened and could no longer fend for herself, and having the capacity to take care of her, "they totally ignored her most basic needs".
They stopped feeding her minimally, cleaning her, cleaning her surroundings, changing her position in bed and healing her wounds, which resulted in a "foreseeable and avoidable death" on the afternoon of August 26, 2015, although the relatives did not give part of it until the morning of the next day.
Definitely, the victim died slowly and painfully "before the absolute neglect and neglect of the children who, in the face of the evidence of the need for attention, not only personal but also medical, let him die in a cruel way".
"The main cause of death was a picture of chronic malnutrition, severe anemia, infected ulcer ulcers and acute purulent bronchopneumonia," states the sentence. When the woman died, she only weighed 25 kilos.
The Supreme Court makes clear in its ruling that the Civil Code establishes the obligation of the children to take care of their parents when they can not do it themselves.
Otherwise, the "absolute inattention" that the Chamber attributes to the convicts, who left their mother "to her fate", entails the commission of a crime given that the need to care for the parent and take him to a medical center is not met. when he needs it.
Therefore, the Chamber recalls that attention to parents is not only a natural obligation, but also a civil one, which can lead to "the criminal sphere" when the children disregard them "with similar results" to those in this case.
Explains the sentence that the children "they have an obligation superior to the moral of attending to their parents"when they" have reached an age and can not fend for themselves ", so they must take care of them "in tune with the reciprocity" of the attention that their parents gave them when they were small.
And in the event that both do not comply with this obligation properly and thus infringe the guardianship of guarantor that both have in different periods of life, there would be "an unfulfilled legal obligation that entails responsibilities" that, in cases like this one , says the Chamber, entails "a high degree of reproach" both socially and criminally.