The Supreme Court confirmed that the sentence of 8 years and a quarter in prison was imposed on the head of the Food Bank of a religious organization in Vicar (Almeria). “For demanding that a woman in social exclusion have sexual relations with him in return for food deliveries for her and her children, he is now in prison.”
The Criminal Chamber dismissed the appeal by the convicted against a sentence of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, (TSJA), which confirmed that of the Provincial Court of Almeria. The court sentence imposed the above prison sentence for aggravated sexual abuse, and a 300 euro fine for minor fraud.
According to the evidence, the convicted was the de facto person responsible for the distribution of food at the Evangelical Church La Puerta located in Poniente Almeria. He says that he moved the Food Bank of Almeria’s warehouse to his garage without the permission of the president.
According to the evidence, “In that first meeting, he touched her stomach and offered to help her if he in turn had sexual relations.” After receiving persistent calls from him, the woman who was “in a desperate situation” without basic food for her children agreed to her claims. She had sexual relations with him on multiple occasions and was promised that he would not be lacking for anything. He also gave her 15 euros.
Later, the victim refused anal sex in another encounter at the home of the condemned man. He then suspended food delivery.
In some cases, the convicted person demanded 5 euro from those who were officially enrolled in food programs and who were in a position of social exclusion. This fallacy was used to suggest that enrollment in the program was a prerequisite. They were also required to pay 2 euro to take the food out of the store.
The Chamber believes that the evidence has made it possible to identify elements of the crime. He stated that he doesn’t believe it is possible to question that “severe poverty and the lack of the most basic resources, when it affects very young children, constitutes an element that extremes vulnerability of those suffering from it, and, as a type of communication vessel, increases the superiority for those who seek out said situation>>.
It understands, therefore, that the facts are “with manifest clarity”: First, the situation that appellant found himself in, which was one of superiority, marked social and personal asymmetry and in which he was compared to a victim in extreme need and consequently, also of great vulnerability; second, his highly restricting projection on the victim’s freedom to consent to the conditioned suggestions that he made; third, the full consciousness of appellant today of both the superiority and the inhibiting effects that had on the victim’s right to make their decision.
The Chamber finds that the appellant was convicted on sufficient evidence. This includes the testimony of both the victim and the accused, as well the testimonial evidence.
Concerning the victim’s testimony, the victim affirms that he provided highly reliable information, “without identifying either, any deficit in subjective credibility derived form a poor relationship with the appellant, or the concurrence of spurious intentions.” He fails to identify the Chamber as having “minimally relevant contradictions, inaccuracies”, or lack of internal consistency.
Javier Hernandez, magistrate, presents the sentence. It refers to the extreme need that the mother and her children were in -without work, separated without receiving public assistance, drug addicts, and without any job. He also said that the assistance provided by the appellant “became the mechanism for ensuring minimum support.” The extreme vitality of the victim led to the investigation into the victim’s socio-personal vulnerability.
It also states that the victim’s information was supported by “testimonials, of notable relevance such as that of a witness who provided very significant data about the existence of a model of taking advantage the vital need for some people who went into the bank of food, especially women, created by the appellant
The Chamber appreciates the contents of this witness’ audios, which reveal how the appellant intended to use his position at the Food Bank to get sexual favors from some women with whom he would be in contact. He also refers to other witnesses, who said that he requested money for food delivery, despite the fact that they should have been free or that he was forced to have sexual relations.
