Gender-based violence

The case involves a romantic relationship of about two years (without cohabitation or children) in which, as proven, many episodes of violence and control occurred. There were physical assaults (such as shoving, hitting, neck grabbing, pinching, wrist holding, kicking, and slapping) and also verbal abuse and intimidation , with death threats or threats of serious harm. Additionally, a constant pattern of jealousy, control (especially at work), belittling, insults, and humiliation was described. All of this generated in the victim a sustained feeling of control, intimidation, and fear of reprisals, especially in the workplace.

Furthermore, the accused already had previous convictions for habitual abuse, threats, and several abuse offenses, and those sentences were still pending. The criminal court sentenced him to multiple prison terms for habitual abuse, threats, and physical abuse, also applying the aggravating circumstance of relapse. It also imposed a restraining order and a compensation for the moral damages caused.

The accused appealed first in appeal, but the Provincial Court confirmed the sentence. Then he went to the Supreme Court (SC), arguing, among other things, that the presumption of innocence was being violated, that the conviction was based "only" on the victim's testimony, that no injuries were observed in medical reports, and that there was "double jeopardy" (non bis in idem) because he was being convicted of habitual abuse and also for specific episodes of abuse and threats "for the same facts."

The SC dismisses the appeal. Regarding the alleged double jeopardy , it explained that habitual abuse is an "autonomous" crime with respect to specific acts: it punishes something different, a sustained climate of violence, domination, fear, humiliation, and distress, and it does not depend on a simple "number" of episodes , but on their permanence or frequency. In this case, it was considered sufficient that between June 2020 and October 2022,6 assaults and 2 death threats were proven, fitting within art. 173.2 of the Criminal Code.

An attempt by the Public Prosecutor's Office to raise an "adhesive appeal" with new corrections in cassation was also rejected, because they were issues not discussed before and cannot be introduced for the first time in cassation.