Acquittal on Cassation for Lack of Sufficient Incriminating Evidence: Enhanced Protection of the Presumption of Innocence

The Conviction at First Instance: Sole Testimony as Incriminating Evidence

The facts underlying the conviction concerned a series of alleged acts of sexual abuse committed during physiotherapy sessions in 2013, when the alleged victim was 12 years old. No immediate complaint was filed, nor was there contemporaneous evidence of the events. The minor first recounted the alleged abuse five years later, in 2018, after receiving advertising from the physiotherapy center run by the accused.

The conviction at first instance was based exclusively on the complainant’s statement, which the court assessed as coherent, spontaneous, and credible. This assessment was confirmed on appeal by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias. In both judgments, the minor’s testimony was admitted as the sole incriminating evidence, without requiring peripheral verification or corroborative elements.

The defense, however, filed an appeal in cassation, alleging violation of Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution, concerning the presumption of innocence, and error in the evaluation of evidence, requesting the Supreme Court to exercise control over the sufficiency and rationality of the fact-finding process.

The Supreme Court’s Doctrine on Sole Testimony as Incriminating Evidence: Limits and Requirements

In this judgment, the Supreme Court reiterates its consistent doctrine that the testimony of the victim may constitute sufficient incriminating evidence, but only if three requirements are met:

1. Absence of subjective incredibility.
2. Consistency and persistence in the incriminating account.
3. Existence of objective corroboration.

This doctrine has been consolidated in multiple decisions (STS 684/2017, STS 21/2018, STS 438/2019) and is applied with greater rigor in cases of sexual offenses committed without witnesses, where the only source of evidence is the word of the alleged victim against that of the accused.

Furthermore, in cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court has established that it may and must exercise control over the rationality of the evidentiary assessment, even in the absence of immediacy. The sufficiency test for sole testimony is not limited to verifying its formal compliance but must assess whether the trial court properly evaluated the credibility of the testimony and whether peripheral elements exist to strengthen its reliability.

Application to the Case: Insufficiency of the Victim’s Statement and Reasonable Doubt

Applying this doctrine to the case at hand, the Supreme Court finds that the conviction lacks any objective corroboration of the minor’s testimony. It points to several circumstances that cast serious doubt on the reliability of the account:

• The complaint was filed five years after the alleged events, without prior disclosure or behavior consistent with persistent trauma.
• The victim continued attending physiotherapy sessions with the accused after the alleged abuse, without referring to any inappropriate conduct.
• The consulting room lacked conditions that would have facilitated the acts: the door had no lock and was frequently accessed by other patients and relatives.
• Other minors treated by the accused did not report similar incidents nor behavioral anomalies on his part.
• The alleged dynamics of the abuse were inconsistent with the physical description of the physiotherapist (who bore visible marks not mentioned by the victim despite the degree of physical contact alleged).

The Court acknowledges that the minor’s testimony is not inherently implausible, but holds that its mere subjective credibility is insufficient to support a conviction. As the judgment states, “the reasonableness of doubt precludes a finding of guilt.” In other words, when certainty is lacking and what remains is only a plausible but uncorroborated hypothesis, the legal order mandates acquittal.

Grounds for Acquittal: Reinforcement of the Principle In Dubio Pro Reo

The Second Chamber emphasizes that the presumption of innocence cannot yield to the mere possibility of veracity in the victim’s testimony, when it is not accompanied by corroborating elements. It reiterates that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings requires certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and that the principle of in dubio pro reo must operate as a safeguard against the risk of wrongful conviction.

In this case, the issue is not that the Supreme Court found the accused more credible, but that the prosecution failed to prove the facts with the constitutionally required degree of certainty. This distinction is crucial: it is not the defendant’s innocence that must be proven, but rather that guilt has not been established in accordance with the law.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the cassation appeal, quashed the judgment of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias, and issued a new acquittal, ordering the return of proceedings and declaring costs ex officio.

Conclusion

Supreme Court Judgment 172/2022 represents a strict and rigorous application of the presumption of innocence and of the standards governing evidentiary assessment in cases where the victim’s statement is the sole incriminating evidence. The ruling does not delegitimize testimonial evidence as such but imposes clear legal limits on its sufficiency, especially in the absence of objective corroboration and where the margin of error is significant.

The judgment reaffirms that criminal proceedings are guided by a logic of guarantees, under which suspicions or subjective impressions are insufficient to destroy the constitutionally protected state of innocence. Conviction requires certainty, and when this is lacking, criminal law cannot intervene. The Court does not discredit the minor’s account, but it concludes that the account, standing alone, does not meet the evidentiary threshold necessary to legitimately restrict fundamental rights.

Ultimately, the decision vindicates the role of cassation as a mechanism of ultimate control over evidentiary excesses and reinforces the message that criminal justice cannot renounce the very principles that legitimate it, no matter how delicate or sensitive the offense under adjudication.