Between September 2014 and June 2016, José Francisco AG approached eleven women on a little-traveled beach located between the municipalities of Sueca and Cullera (Valencia) and, hiding his face with a straw hat and sunglasses, abused of them or sexually assaulted them. Sentenced to 15 years in prison by the Provincial Court of Valencia for four crimes of abuse, three of sexual assault (two of them in tentative degree) and two of violation, his defense asked the Supreme Court (TS) to absolve him for having a paraphilia disorder, in particular exhibitionism, which prevented him from understanding the extent of their actions and repress their instincts.
In the judgment appealed, the court already noted an extenuating circumstance for this reason and considered the partial defense of mental anomaly. His will, yes, was "slightly modified," but that did not stop him from "knowing and understanding the illicit nature" of his behavior.
Now, the High Court has confirmed that conviction and the refusal to apply to the defendant the full exemption for that deviation of sexual nature "where pleasure is obtained through an activity other than sexual intercourse in itself" always linked to two elements : the risk and the feeling of power over the victim.
In the resolution of the Criminal Chamber, of which the magistrate Vicente Magro has been a speaker, the court recalls that the experts conclude that this "perversion" by itself can not "in any way" annul the conscience and will "of the bad that is being done. "The modus operandi of José Francisco AG was always the same: all the events occurred in the same strip of the beach, in an area not built and a few hours" in which there used to be nobody or few people " It acted in a very similar way: "He used to masturbate" in front of his victims "and then tried to touch them on the breasts and genital organss, while trying to throw them to the ground, which in several occasions got, putting on top of them while he was touching "and told them" I wanted to fuck with them. "
The magistrates have valued the "highly detailed description of the victims' reactions" to how they tried to "get away" from their aggressor and resisted their "libidinous acts". And they specify that in some cases it was not "mere acts of touching" but that their conduct was "violent or intimidating", "like taking someone's arm" or from the waist to "try to throw him to the ground". That is, precisely – the Chamber emphasizes- the "differential key" that distinguishes abuses from sexual assault.
The condemned, the magistrates assure, carried out with his victims "a permanent climate of harassment". And although all of them tried to flee or get away from him, his aggressor, "in a clear attitude of imposing his behavior, from a physical or psychological point of view" carried out "attacks against your sexual freedom, one of the most execrable crimes that can be carried out against the body of women in this case and against their freedom to decide sexually ", causing in many cases" important traumas ".