The Provincial Court of Bizkaia has upheld the financial penalty of 270 euros that the Court of Inquiry No. 4 of the Court of Instance of Bilbao imposed on a father for threatening a 15-year-old boy to "smash his head in" if he came near his children again, according to what the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) has communicated.
The events took place around 7:30 a.m. on November 16, 2024, at the Euskotren station in Bilbao. One of the accused's sons phoned him to warn him that the minor was intimidating them. The man then went to the platform and, according to the account of proven facts, told him that, if he came near his children again, he would "smash his head in".
The trial court declared him the author of a petty offense of threats and imposed a fine on him, but also set that he pay the minor 250 euros as civil liability for moral damage.
Unhappy with that ruling, the convicted man appealed before the Provincial Court of Bizkaia, alleging that there was not sufficient incriminating evidence to issue a conviction and appealing to the principle of "in dubio pro reo". The court stresses that, as the challenged ruling already pointed out, the accused himself offered at trial a version "substantially coincident" with that of the minor, with the difference being limited to denying having uttered the phrase that he was "going to smash his head in".
In the case it was also established that there was a history of bad relations between the parties. "In this context it cannot be considered unreasonable to conclude that, during said encounter, (the accused) could have uttered the expression attributed to him," the Court reasons.
The Biscayan court gives special relevance to the minor's statement during the oral hearing, which it describes as "persistent, coherent and coincident with the content of the complaint," as well as to that of his parents. They appeared as reference witnesses and recounted, in coincident terms, what their son told them immediately after what happened.
The appellant also argued, subsidiarily, that there had been a breach of law, on the grounds that the proven facts did not fit within a petty offense of threats. In his view, the expression analyzed was uttered at a specific moment of tension and constituted a "merely angry or reactive manifestation, lacking criminal relevance". Along those lines, he argued that it was an "unfortunate expression spoken in a context of conflict".
The Audiencia, however, rejects this thesis and states that the fact that "an adult person, and moreover the father of the minors with whom the complainant had had prior conflicts, addresses a 15-year-old minor who was alone and tells him that, if he does not leave his children alone, he is going to 'blow his head off', clearly exceeds the scope of a mere expression of anger or displeasure".
"Such a manifestation outwardly expresses the threat of a future harm and is suitable to affect the tranquility and calm of the recipient. Not in vain, the minor himself stated at trial that he came to think that the defendant might carry out what he told him and even come to physically assault him", adds the ruling.
The Audiencia removes the compensation to the minor
By contrast, the Provincial Audiencia of Bizkaia does partially uphold the appeal by considering, as the convicted man requested, that it is not appropriate to maintain the 250-euro compensation for moral damage. It holds that no compensable moral injury has been proven that goes "beyond the natural unease, fear or restlessness" inherent in the intimidation already sanctioned by the criminal offense applied.
"To justify an additional compensation for moral damage, it is necessary to prove an impact of greater magnitude or persistence, capable of individualization and independent assessment, a circumstance that has not been proven in the proceedings", the Audiencia clarifies.
Consequently, the court only partially grants the father's appeal, annuls the financial compensation for moral damage and upholds the rest of the rulings in the first-instance judgment. The ruling issued by the Audiencia is final.