[ad_1]
The Ministry of the Interior and Public Security decided to file an appeal for annulment against the ruling of the Seventh Court of Oral Criminal Trial of Santiago that acquitted an uncle and his nephew accused of having been responsible for the burning of the Pedrero de la Línea station 5 of the Santiago Metro.
“As we said at the time, we do not share the decision of the court”, said the undersecretary of the Interior Juan Francisco Galli.
In addition, it was decided to appeal, alternatively, about the costs imposed on the Secretary of State, as the complainant, since they claim to have a plausible motive to litigate.
Pedrero was repaired and returned to operation last May after suffering damage valued at $ 615 million.
“After analyzing in detail the text of the sentence that acquitted the defendants for the Metro Pedreros fire, it has been decided to file an appeal for annulment, taking into account the infractions that can be noticed in the different reasoning of the magistrates,” says the presentation of the portfolio of government released this Friday.
They also maintain that “in the ruling it is noted that the main argument of the TOP magistrates was to decide to expel the main evidence from the accusers (30-minute video in which the accused can be seen carrying out the alleged acts inside the Metro station ) attended that they consider that the existing errors in the chains of custody (of dates and records) have made it illegal. In accordance with the foregoing, all the evidentiary activity derived from such video would be affected by the alleged wrongfulness (theory of the poisoned tree fruit) ”.
The ministry, the plaintiff, in the case, described the argument as inadmissible, noting that “the discussion about the legality of such evidence had already taken place, or the procedural opportunity to open, in the Guarantee Courts, which is the natural place where these discussions should take place ”.
“If said test passed the procedural filters in the Guarantee Courts, it cannot be the Oral Criminal Trial Court that will revive a discussion that has already ended procedurally”, it is noted.
On the other hand, they accuse that the ruling confuses “illegal evidence (that infringes or violates fundamental guarantees) with illegal or irregular evidence (that does not respect the regulatory or legal forms).”
“In the process there has been no illicit evidence, only errors in the forms of the chains of custody,” it is stated, adding that “it is necessary to emphasize that the Court of Oral Criminal Trial itself rules out the possibility of a setup, such as tried to argue the defense; There is nothing of this in the process, there is not even a hint of such setup or malicious activity on the part of the police, only errors of form ”.
The nullity requests an appeal to the procedural norm that applies when “the sentence has been passed in opposition to another criminal sentence passed in the authority of res judicata”, in addition to the one that operates when the sentence has omitted any of the requirements provided in the legislation relating to the “clear, logical and complete exposition of each one of the facts and circumstances that are considered proven by the court and the assessment of the evidence.”
“What happens to me with that is tremendous frustration,” said President Sebastián Piñera regarding the ruling in early November.
