Los límites judiciales para imponer una pena superior a la acordada en el marco de la conclusión anticipada
Date
2021-08-23
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
Este informe jurídico analiza tres problemas centrales que se abordan dentro de la
Casación 113-2017, Áncash, en el marco de la conclusión anticipada: 1) qué rol cumple
el juez cuando las partes han arribado a un acuerdo, 2) en qué supuestos el juez puede
rechazar dicho acuerdo, conforme al Art. 372º, inciso 5, del CPP, y 3) cuáles son los
límites que tiene el juzgador al momento de imponer una pena superior a la acordada. Por
ello, dentro del presente trabajo se ha concluido lo siguiente.
En primer lugar, se ha establecido que el juez debe cumplir un rol activo cuando las partes
han llegado a un acuerdo, en el marco de la conclusión anticipada, por lo que este debe
realizar un control judicial de dicho consenso, con el fin de determinar si este acuerdo se
encuentra conforme a derecho. En segundo lugar, se sostiene que, si bien no hay una
mención expresa dentro del Art. 372º, inciso 5, del CPP, sobre si el juez puede rechazar
la pena consensuada por las partes para imponer una superior, esta facultad se encuentra
implícita debido a la exigencia que tiene el juzgador de imponer una pena de acuerdo a
los principios de legalidad y proporcionalidad. Finalmente, hemos concluido, en la misma
línea que la Corte Suprema, que el juez tiene 3 límites que tomar en cuenta al imponer
una pena superior a la acordada por las partes, los cuales se vinculan con el respeto a los
principios de: legalidad, proporcionalidad, acusatorio y congruencia.
This legal report analyzes three central problems addressed within Cassation 113-2017, Áncash, in the framework of the anticipated conclusion: 1) what role does the judge play when the parties have reached an agreement, 2) under what assumptions the judge can reject such agreement, according to Art. 372º, paragraph 5, of the CPP, and 3) what are the limits that the judge has when imposing a penalty higher than the agreed one. Therefore, this paper has concluded the following. Firstly, it has been established that the judge must play an active role when the parties have reached an agreement, within the framework of the anticipated conclusion, so the judge have to carry out a judicial control of such consensus in order to determine whether the agreement is in accordance with the law. Secondly, it is argued that although there is no express mention in Art. 372º, paragraph 5, of the CPP, on whether the judge can reject the penalty agreed upon by the parties to impose a higher one, this power is implicit due to the requirement of the judge to impose a penalty in accordance with the principles of legality and proportionality. Finally, in the same line as the Supreme Court, we have concluded that the judge has 3 limits to take into account when imposing a higher penalty than the one agreed upon by the parties, which are linked to the respect for the principles of: legality, proportionality, accusatory and congruence
This legal report analyzes three central problems addressed within Cassation 113-2017, Áncash, in the framework of the anticipated conclusion: 1) what role does the judge play when the parties have reached an agreement, 2) under what assumptions the judge can reject such agreement, according to Art. 372º, paragraph 5, of the CPP, and 3) what are the limits that the judge has when imposing a penalty higher than the agreed one. Therefore, this paper has concluded the following. Firstly, it has been established that the judge must play an active role when the parties have reached an agreement, within the framework of the anticipated conclusion, so the judge have to carry out a judicial control of such consensus in order to determine whether the agreement is in accordance with the law. Secondly, it is argued that although there is no express mention in Art. 372º, paragraph 5, of the CPP, on whether the judge can reject the penalty agreed upon by the parties to impose a higher one, this power is implicit due to the requirement of the judge to impose a penalty in accordance with the principles of legality and proportionality. Finally, in the same line as the Supreme Court, we have concluded that the judge has 3 limits to take into account when imposing a higher penalty than the one agreed upon by the parties, which are linked to the respect for the principles of: legality, proportionality, accusatory and congruence
Description
Keywords
Perú--Legislación, Jueces--Perú, Proporcionalidad en derecho, Penas--Legislación--Perú, Perú. Código Procesal Penal (2004)
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess