José Enrique Abuín Gey
,
El Chicle
, sentenced to reviewable permanent prison for murdering
Diana Quer
, adds a new sentence to his judicial record.
The
Provincial Court
of
A Coruña
has just declared him guilty of the rape of his sister-in-law, the twin sister of his ex-wife, when she was 17 years old.
This is already the fourth sentence for Abuín Gey, who was also sentenced to five years in prison for kidnapping and attempting to rape a girl in the town of
Boiro
in A Coruña and two and a half years for drug trafficking.
On this occasion, his sentence is for the crime of sexual assault and entails another 14 years in prison.
The events were judged in November, but they had already occurred 17 years ago, in
January 2005
.
The case remained archived for 13 years and was not reopened until after her arrest for the Diana Quer case.
After long months of investigation, the
Civil Guard
established a pattern of behavior of
El Chicle
as a sexual predator and concluded that there were indications to consider that he had indeed committed this violation, so that the crime was investigated again and finally
ended in a conviction.
The court has also prohibited her from communicating with the victim and from approaching her for 22 years, as well as the payment of compensation of 30,000 euros, since the court asserts that, as a consequence of these events, the woman "suffered changes substantial in their daily life, with negative hobbies in their social, family, sexual and affective relationships".
The sentence, notified this Monday, considers it proven that on January 17, 2005, the accused telephoned the victim on two occasions early in the morning to tell her that he wanted to return some money to his father, he appeared in front of her house and he convinced, "taking advantage of their family relationship", to get into his car, "arguing that they would go to collect that money".
According to the court ruling, he drove at high speed to a forest environment in the San Mamede park, in the Lousame City Hall, a place "very little frequented at that time on a day like the one on which the events occurred."
Once there, he took his sister-in-law's phone, put it away, took out a large knife and showed it to the victim, "while passing it to her as a warning against its possible use near the body."
With the knife "always in hand", she told him to perform fellatio on her, to which the minor refused.
He then asked her to undress, gave her a nightgown, placed himself on top of her in the passenger seat and, "keeping the knife in his hand and close to the minor's body as a threat",
raped her.
Later, he told her that if she told anyone what happened, "he would kill her, her sister, and her sister's daughter, who was also his daughter, in addition to killing himself."
no revenge
Despite the defendant's insinuations that his ex-sister-in-law denounced him for revenge, the sentence concludes that the woman "does not harbor a vindictive will" and, furthermore, she continuously maintained the same version of events since 2005, when she already told him the facts to a friend and her sister.
According to the sentence, "it is difficult to sustain that a minor under 17 years of age prepared that scenario" in which she recounted what happened for the first time.
In addition, she maintains that all of her immediate behavior that day is "fully consistent with having just suffered an event such as the one described" and makes it unlikely that she responded to a simple simulation.
The sentencing court, the same one that already sentenced him on the three previous occasions, concludes as fundamental evidence the
"coherent" statement of the victim, the testimony of the friend to whom he told what happened that same day and the statement of the agents who carried out in 2005, accompanied by the complainant and her mother, the visual inspection of the place where the events occurred.
Thus, one of the agents who participated the following day in the visual inspection of the place where the events occurred testified that the minor "was very clear and indicated precisely what had happened."
The sentence is not final, because an appeal can be filed against it.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
Know more
