[ad_1]
The Seventh Court of Oral Criminal Trial of Santiago announced the sentence on Tuesday acquittal of the accused – uncle and nephew – set fire to Pedrero Metro station. Illicit that would have been perpetrated in October of last year in Macul, in the so-called social outbreak.
Is about Daniel Benjamín Morales Muñoz and BESM, who were investigated by the Public Ministry as perpetrators of the incident that affected said station.
Likewise, the court acquitted the adolescent BESM of the charges that accused him of being the author of public disorders and also discarded the civil lawsuit deducted.
In a unanimous decision, the court – composed of justices José Pérez Anker (president), María Elizabeth Schürmann Martin and Fernando Monsalve Figueroa (editor) -, ordered to pay in equal parts the costs of the case to the Public Ministry, the complainant Ministry of the Interior and Public Security and the complainant Empresa de Transporte de Pasajeros Metro SA; and in the civil aspect, the company was ordered to pay the costs.
“These judges, by legal mandate, are obliged to examine the preceding evidence with such rigor that there is no reasonable doubt regarding its legality, sufficiency and credibility and, in light of this transcendental principle of legal certainty, their work, when carrying out the analysis of It must take into consideration that the evidence that is incorporated into the trial has been obtained without violating fundamental guarantees that are enshrined in our Political Constitution of the Republic and in the International Treaties signed by the State of Chile and that, by mandate of the same Constitution oblige us; and that this test meets the standards of conviction required to consider a punishable act as proven, “the court reasons.
In addition, it is specified that “the Political Constitution of Chile recognizes all people, without distinction, the right to a rational and fair process, legally processed and prior to the declaratory, constitutive or conviction sentence issued by permanent, independent Courts of Law and uncorrupted. In this process, among other guarantees, the publicity of the jurisdictional acts, the right to action, the opportune knowledge of it by the opposing party, the location, the adequate advice and defense with lawyers, the right to compensation must be contemplated. of the evidence and that it is obtained in accordance with the law, the right to object to the evidence provided, the bilaterality of the hearing, the power to file appeals, the pronouncement of rulings within the legally established deadlines and the justification of those in the legal regime or, failing that, in the general principles of law and natural equity ”.
Regarding the evidence provided, the court found that “We can indeed specify that the evidence that was brought to trial violated and ignored norms that enshrine those, such as not clearly specifying where the evidence was obtained from, and not complying with what is imperatively imposed by the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the analysis and preservation of evidence, as established in article 187 and 185 of the Code Criminal Procedure ”.
They specify that “since the police officers have carried out actions that do not correspond to what the Law imperatively imposes on them, disregarding the importance of, among other actions, the ‘chain of custody’, To ensure compliance with a reliable test that does not admit doubt or objection, in order for the Court to be certain and accredited what the evidence contains, they make it illegal, the same quality that it has, as a result of contamination, all the evidence that From it derives, that is, as already stated in the previous motives, those evidence that were brought to trial to also prove the participation of one of the accused, the adolescent, in another illegal act; and not only the seized species become illicit, but also the statements of the police officers on that evidence, such as the expert opinions and the documentary and photographic evidence derived from those evidentiary means determined as illegal (…). For the above, the court it cannot enter to validate the evidence rendered, which, as has already been established, constitutes illegal evidence ”.
In effect, for all the above and, without prejudice to the fact that the commission of the illegal arson has been proven, and “since the participation of the defendants BESM and Daniel Benjamín Morales Muñoz in it has not been established, an acquittal will be issued in favor of both for this crime in which they were accused; and acquittal, also, in favor of the first named, for the crime of public disorder, for which he was accused, and which was not accredited ”.
[ad_2]
