The Supreme Court has confirmed this Thursday the permanent prison sentence that can be reviewed José Enrique Abuín Gey, alias «El Chicle», for the murder of Diana Quer in 2016 in A Pobra do Caramiñal (La Coruña), with the aim of concealing a previous crime against the sexual freedom of the victim. The Second Chamber has confirmed another sentence of four years and one day in prison for a crime of illegal detention and a crime of sexual assault, in media contest. In both crimes, the extenuating confession was taken into account.
Magistrates fully dismiss the appeal filed by the convicted person against the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia, which in turn confirmed that issued by a Court of the Jury of the Provincial Court of La Coruña, which also sentenced him to pay compensation of 130,000 euros to each of the parents and of 40,000 euros to the victim’s sister, and imposed the prohibition of approaching them at a distance of less than 1,000 meters and of communicating by any means during the duration of the sentence and, in any case, from the beginning of compliance with the same and until ten years have elapsed from the conclusion.
For the Supreme Court there is sufficient proof that Abuín kidnapped Diana to violate her sexual freedom and that he murdered her to prevent her from betraying him for what he had done, hiding her body in the well “ruthlessly, and completely naked,” and leaving her there for a long time until she was finally located with his collaboration.
Therefore, and due to the way in which the events unfolded, the motive for the defendant’s actions “was of a sexual nature, not an economic one.” The girl’s death occurred by constriction, he says, and not because he was stripping, as the defense argued.
The Chamber emphasizes that “the perversity of the act is elevated because it supposes an absolute contempt for the woman, and her condition as such, when approaching her in the place where she was detained, and introduced into the vehicle. All of it, with the firm and iron intention of threatening their sexual freedom, -There is no accredited motive other than sexual, despite the appellant’s efforts to provoke the theft- and arranging to take her to the place where she went to carry out her attack on sexual freedom without anyone being able to do anything or help Diana, for what can be understood as the ‘atrocious suffering’ that the victim had to suffer when he was kidnapped by the appellant, knowingly, or being able to imagine what was going to happen to him, and being powerless and defenseless to avoid what finally happened ».