0
The Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of Acre () unanimously decided to maintain the conviction of a man accused of rape, threats and acts of violence in the context of domestic violence in Rio Branco. When denying the defense’s appeal, the judges reinforced that the set of evidence is sufficient to support the sentence, with emphasis on the victim’s testimony, according to information from the federal government.
In the ruling, the panel emphasizes that, in crimes of this nature, the victim’s report has central weight. “The victim’s word, firm, coherent and reiterated in court, has special relevance in crimes against sexual dignity”, says one of the excerpts of the decision, which follows the consolidated understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).
The defense alleged a lack of evidence for the rape conviction, especially due to the lack of expert examination. However, the court dismissed this argument.
READ ALSO:
“The absence of an expert examination does not prevent the proof of materiality in sexual crimes”, noted the magistrates, highlighting that this type of crime often occurs without witnesses.
Based on this, the judges concluded that there is no room for acquittal: “The body of evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for the crime of rape, making acquittal unfeasible.”
Another point contested by the defense was the application of an aggravating factor because the crime occurred in the context of domestic violence. The thesis of “bis in idem” – when there is double punishment for the same act, was also rejected. According to the decision, “there is no bis in idem in the incidence of the aggravating circumstance of Art. 61, II, ‘f’, of the Penal Code”, even when the crimes fall under the Maria da Penha Law.
The Court also maintained the minimum compensation of R$2,000 for moral damages to the victim. In the opinion of the judges, this type of compensation can be fixed even without the production of specific evidence about the damage.
“The setting of a minimum value for compensation for moral damages is permitted […] as long as there is an express request”, points out the ruling.
Regarding the value, the court considered that it was within reasonable parameters: “neither insignificant nor exorbitant”.
Despite the conviction being upheld, the defendant’s right to appeal freely was preserved, as this condition had already been granted previously and there was no failure to comply with legal measures.
