Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 23:19:22 GMT -6
After reviewing the appraisal of the personal evidence made by the trial judge, the Provincial Court considers that the examination of the proceedings evidences a manifestly erroneous conclusion by the Judge for relying “on absurd, illogical, irrational or arbitrary reasoning, which makes it necessary and “A modification of the facts declared proven in the sentence is inevitable with objective criteria and not debatable, subjective or preconceived interpretations.”
Well, in the appealed sentence, the Court of First Instance Email Data judge considered the reported facts to be unproven because she considered that there was not sufficient proof of abuse or attacks by the accused towards the minor, despite the fact that, according to the sentence, she did not deny the existence of injuries in the minor, since there is no witness who has stated in the oral trial that he had witnessed aggression by the accused, without sufficient credibility being attributed for the conviction to the testimony of the minor himself .
However, the sentence recognizes that the witness, the aunt of the minor's mother, is the only person who has seen the accused attack the minor , as she stated that she pushed him against the sofa, that he hit him on the head, that he hit him "Bonlo", who has seen him kick him and who was able to observe the bruises that were reflected in the medical report, describing how on the minor's back you could even see the bruise and the mark of a hand, as appears in one of the Photographs. Despite this, the ruling does not attribute any evidentiary relevance to his statement due to the fact that "it does not specify the date and it is unknown whether said episode is related to the photograph incorporated into the proceedings" , despite the fact that he was not asked. about it in court since it appears in his statement at the investigation headquarters that this episode occurred a month before the complaint was filed.
Likewise, the sentence also completely omits the statement of another witness, who testified at trial that she witnessed how the accused slapped the minor in the face on the day of her daughter's communion.
Well, in the appealed sentence, the Court of First Instance Email Data judge considered the reported facts to be unproven because she considered that there was not sufficient proof of abuse or attacks by the accused towards the minor, despite the fact that, according to the sentence, she did not deny the existence of injuries in the minor, since there is no witness who has stated in the oral trial that he had witnessed aggression by the accused, without sufficient credibility being attributed for the conviction to the testimony of the minor himself .
However, the sentence recognizes that the witness, the aunt of the minor's mother, is the only person who has seen the accused attack the minor , as she stated that she pushed him against the sofa, that he hit him on the head, that he hit him "Bonlo", who has seen him kick him and who was able to observe the bruises that were reflected in the medical report, describing how on the minor's back you could even see the bruise and the mark of a hand, as appears in one of the Photographs. Despite this, the ruling does not attribute any evidentiary relevance to his statement due to the fact that "it does not specify the date and it is unknown whether said episode is related to the photograph incorporated into the proceedings" , despite the fact that he was not asked. about it in court since it appears in his statement at the investigation headquarters that this episode occurred a month before the complaint was filed.
Likewise, the sentence also completely omits the statement of another witness, who testified at trial that she witnessed how the accused slapped the minor in the face on the day of her daughter's communion.