La imposibilidad de suspender la prescripción de la acción penal por la acusación directa en el Perú
Date
2024-01-25
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
La presente investigación aborda el problema de equiparar la acusación directa a la
disposición de formalización de investigación preparatoria, para asignar el efecto de
suspender la prescripción de la acción penal. Problema generado por la jurisprudencia
nacional que justifica la aplicación de la analogía en perjuicio del imputado a fin de
garantizar la tutela judicial de la víctima y evitar la impunidad, aplicando para tal efecto
indebidamente el test de proporcionalidad. Nuestro principal objetivo es identificar y
explicar los fundamentos de la jurisprudencia nacional que consideran ello posible. En
este contexto, se propone que la suspensión prevista en el artículo 339, inciso 1, del
Código Procesal Penal, se debe extender solo hasta la conclusión de la investigación
preparatoria. Finalmente, se llegan a las conclusiones de que el test de proporcionalidad
desarrollado por la Corte Suprema resulta inaceptable porque no realiza un adecuado
examen de necesidad, al ser la pretensión civil autónoma, y la absolución o
sobreseimiento no afecta el que exista un pronunciamiento judicial sobre dicha
pretensión. Asimismo, porque no se realiza un adecuado examen de proporcionalidad
en estricto, al no justificar por qué aplicar la precitada analogía resultaría una afectación
“leve” al principio de legalidad, a pesar que este tipo de analogía se encuentra proscrita
en la Constitución Política, la prescripción tiene relevancia constitucional y el
fundamento de la acusación directa radica en la economía procesal, se aplica en casos
simples y con plazos reducidos.
The present investigation addresses the problem of equating the direct accusation with the provision of formalization of the preparatory investigation, to assign the effect of suspending the prescription of the criminal action. Problem generated by national jurisprudence that justifies the application of the analogy to the detriment of the accused in order to guarantee judicial protection of the victim and avoid impunity, improperly applying the proportionality test for this purpose. Our main objective is to identify and explain the foundations of national jurisprudence that consider this possible. In this context, it is proposed that the suspension provided for in article 339, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Code, should be extended only until the conclusion of the preparatory investigation. Finally, the conclusions are reached that the proportionality test developed by the Supreme Court is unacceptable because it does not carry out an adequate examination of necessity, since the civil claim is autonomous, and the acquittal or dismissal does not affect the existence of a judicial ruling on said claim. Likewise, because an adequate examination of strict proportionality is not carried out, since it is not justified why applying the aforementioned analogy would result in a "slight" affectation of the principle of legality, despite the fact that this type of analogy is prohibited in the Political Constitution, the Prescription has constitutional relevance and the foundation of direct accusation lies in procedural economy, it is applied in simple cases and with reduced deadlines.
The present investigation addresses the problem of equating the direct accusation with the provision of formalization of the preparatory investigation, to assign the effect of suspending the prescription of the criminal action. Problem generated by national jurisprudence that justifies the application of the analogy to the detriment of the accused in order to guarantee judicial protection of the victim and avoid impunity, improperly applying the proportionality test for this purpose. Our main objective is to identify and explain the foundations of national jurisprudence that consider this possible. In this context, it is proposed that the suspension provided for in article 339, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Code, should be extended only until the conclusion of the preparatory investigation. Finally, the conclusions are reached that the proportionality test developed by the Supreme Court is unacceptable because it does not carry out an adequate examination of necessity, since the civil claim is autonomous, and the acquittal or dismissal does not affect the existence of a judicial ruling on said claim. Likewise, because an adequate examination of strict proportionality is not carried out, since it is not justified why applying the aforementioned analogy would result in a "slight" affectation of the principle of legality, despite the fact that this type of analogy is prohibited in the Political Constitution, the Prescription has constitutional relevance and the foundation of direct accusation lies in procedural economy, it is applied in simple cases and with reduced deadlines.
Description
Keywords
Acción penal--Perú, Prescripción (Derecho)--Perú
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