[ad_1]
This Monday, by five votes to zero, the second chamber of the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the request presented by the General (R) of Carabineros, Iván Whipple, accused by the regional prosecutor of Magallanes, Eugenio Campos, in the framework of the investigation by the institutional mega-fraud of more than $ 30 billion.
As reported by the newspaper Third, Whipple’s defense wanted the case to be paralyzed while discussing the alleged unconstitutionality of article 370 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that prevents them from appealing to the Court of Appeals after an unfavorable resolution of the Seventh Court of Garntía de Santiago.
The lawyers had asked the Seventh Court of Guarantee to separate the accusation against him and to issue a separate order of opening to the rest of the formalized, which was denied by the guarantee judge. Whipple then alleged before the TC that article 370 of the Code of Criminal Procedure violated his right to a fair and rational procedure as guaranteed by the Constitution because it prevents him from appealing and that the superiors of that magistrate can review the petition.
On the other hand, the Public Ministry and the State Defense Council (CDE) asked that the appeal be rejected and not suspended. The former alleged that there was no pending management since the self-opening of the oral trial had already been ruled. While the latter said that “it is important to note that there are 31 accused defendants in the investigation, so that an eventual suspension of the procedure not only affects or understands the interests of the accused Whipple, but unfailingly the rest.”
For the ministers Gonzalo García, Cristián Letelier, Nelson Pozo, Miguel Ángel Fernández and the president of the TC María Luisa Brahm, there were no arguments that gave account of a constitutional conflict and the autonomy of the Public Ministry and the powers is highlighted in the ruling. of the guarantee judge in the stages prior to the oral trial.
“When the Public Ministry formulates various accusations that the judge deems appropriate to submit to the same oral trial, and provided that this does not prejudice the right to defense, it may join them and decree the opening of a single oral trial, if they are linked by referring to the same fact, the same defendant or because the same evidence should be examined, “the ruling cites.
“The guarantee judge may issue separate opening proceedings for different facts or different defendants that are included in the same accusation, when, if known in a single oral trial, could cause serious difficulties in the organization or development of the judgment or detriment to the right of defense, and provided that this does not imply the risk of provoking contradictory decisions ”, they conclude.
[ad_2]
