10 and a half years in prison for man who tried to set fire to his ex-wife

The 43-year-old man was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison for the crime of attempted qualified homicide, a crime of aggravated domestic violence and a crime of offence against integrity, said today the president of the collective, who also determined the maintenance of preventive detention.

The Court found most of the facts present in the Public Prosecutor's indictment to be proven.

According to the judge who presided over the collective, only the “heroic actions” of the neighbors and the twist of fate ensured that the crime was not committed, in March 2024, months after the couple had separated.

Although the defendant claimed several times that he did not know that the liquid he had in the bottles and poured over his ex-wife was flammable, the Coimbra Court did not believe this version, noting that the man, during the trial, ended up contradicting himself by saying, at a certain point, that he did not throw any matches at the victim because he did not want to set her on fire.

“In other words, by saying this, the defendant naturally knew that the liquid was flammable,” noted the president of the collective, also stressing that the liquid was regularly used by the man in the workshop where he worked and smelled of petroleum.

To prove the facts, the Court of Coimbra relied in part on the defendant's confession (who did not confirm the entire accusation) and also on the victim's testimony, which it considered to be credible and less accusatory in tone than the Public Prosecutor's Office's own ruling.

The 43-year-old man was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison for the crime of attempted qualified homicide, a crime of aggravated domestic violence and a crime of offence against integrity, said today the president of the collective, who also determined the maintenance of preventive detention.

The Court found most of the facts present in the Public Prosecutor's indictment to be proven.

According to the judge who presided over the collective, only the “heroic actions” of the neighbors and the twist of fate ensured that the crime was not committed, in March 2024, months after the couple had separated.

Although the defendant claimed several times that he did not know that the liquid he had in the bottles and poured over his ex-wife was flammable, the Coimbra Court did not believe this version, noting that the man, during the trial, ended up contradicting himself by saying, at a certain point, that he did not throw any matches at the victim because he did not want to set her on fire.

“In other words, by saying this, the defendant naturally knew that the liquid was flammable,” noted the president of the collective, also stressing that the liquid was regularly used by the man in the workshop where he worked and smelled of petroleum.

To prove the facts, the Court of Coimbra relied in part on the defendant's confession (who did not confirm the entire accusation) and also on the victim's testimony, which it considered to be credible and less accusatory in tone than the Public Prosecutor's Office's own ruling.

The 43-year-old man was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison for the crime of attempted qualified homicide, a crime of aggravated domestic violence and a crime of offence against integrity, said today the president of the collective, who also determined the maintenance of preventive detention.

The Court found most of the facts present in the Public Prosecutor's indictment to be proven.

According to the judge who presided over the collective, only the “heroic actions” of the neighbors and the twist of fate ensured that the crime was not committed, in March 2024, months after the couple had separated.

Although the defendant claimed several times that he did not know that the liquid he had in the bottles and poured over his ex-wife was flammable, the Coimbra Court did not believe this version, noting that the man, during the trial, ended up contradicting himself by saying, at a certain point, that he did not throw any matches at the victim because he did not want to set her on fire.

“In other words, by saying this, the defendant naturally knew that the liquid was flammable,” noted the president of the collective, also stressing that the liquid was regularly used by the man in the workshop where he worked and smelled of petroleum.

To prove the facts, the Court of Coimbra relied in part on the defendant's confession (who did not confirm the entire accusation) and also on the victim's testimony, which it considered to be credible and less accusatory in tone than the Public Prosecutor's Office's own ruling.