A mixed jury unanimously rejected a motion to recognize extenuating circumstances for actor Petros Philippidis.

The prosecutor offered six years in prison for each attempted rape. Earlier, the court unanimously found him guilty of two attempts to rape two women, his colleagues who denounced him. At the same time, the joint jury found the actor not guilty on charges of rape.

After hearing the decision, Petros Philippidis’s lawyer, Michalis Dimitrakopoulos, said: “Am I buying in vain? I have a debt to my client”, and, addressing the actor, he added: “I believe that you are innocent. The Court of Appeal will turn off“.

Defense motion

Filippidis’ side asked that good behavior after the act and previous cohabitation be recognized as extenuating circumstances, but prosecutor Stella Stoya offered to reject the actor’s petition.

Regarding the first mitigating circumstance, the prosecutor stated that: “for the recognition of good behavior after the commission of an act, positive behavior of the perpetrator is required for a long time. He must behave in such a way that third parties are left wondering how this person committed the offense. It is not enough for the defendant not to commit criminal acts, it is necessary to commit positive incidents that testify to a harmonious and smooth social coexistence. The defense rather vaguely mentioned that since 2014 (since the commission of one of the acts for which he was convicted) nothing has been heard from the accused. The defendant refers to cases of normal behavior and that nothing was heard against him. But this is not accurate, in my opinion, and I am referring to the testimony of Ant1’s leader about the harassment in 2016 and Ms. Drosaki’s testimony about the incident.“.

“Not enough clean criminal record”

Ms. Stoya also asked to exclude the mitigating circumstance of cohabitation, emphasizing that: “The mere fact that the defendant has no criminal record is not enough. The acts for which the defendant was convicted were not “inconsistencies” until the end of his life. The accused says that the defense has no criminal records and was lenient. The claim is made vaguely, in my opinion. The defendant’s behavior was not inappropriate or surprising in relation to his previous life. He had a history of antisocial behavior and I mention indicatively what Evelina Papulia testified about the incidents of 1996“.

The decision of the court was made in accordance with the proposal of the prosecutor’s office.

What Lena Drosaki testified to

Lena Drosaki testified that the defendant often called her and gave their communication a sexual, harassing connotation. “I told him, Mr. Philippidis, please. Tell me why I didn’t close it? I did not have the strength to do it, I felt that I had to do it to the end. This happened several times. The days came when I had to take exams. I was sitting on the steps of the theater and I saw him in front of me, and he said to me: “If you do not sit for me, you will not pass.”. I just remember being on stage and at that moment he comes in and goes to the jury. Kisses, hugs.. I froze, I lost them. And then, leaving, I remember this movement, as if he was telling me: “I told you that I have this strength not to pass.” I didn’t pass.”

Referring to the play “Crime on the Orient Express” directed by Katya Dandoulaki in 2018, Lena Drosaki testified that she asked if Petros Philippidis would perform. When informed that he would only be directing, he replied to Ms. Dandoulakis: “Good, because if he acts, I won’t be there.” “She told me not to worry that you would be under my protection.”

The witness claimed that there was an “explosive atmosphere” during rehearsals when the defendant saw her talking to other colleagues. “The rehearsal will not be easy, there will be tension (…) I informed Ms. Dandoulakis that I was leaving, that I could not continue in the same spirit, and she told me: “You will not leave. You didn’t do anything.”