Legalidad De La Detencion En Chile

This is the hearing at which the lawfulness of detention is reviewed when the detainee is placed at the disposal of the court of guarantee by court order or in flagrante delicto, where it can be determined whether he is in cases of flagrante delicto under article 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Public Prosecutor`s Office opposes the resolution of the hearing, which declared the detention of the teenager illegal. After considering the above, the Court of Appeal withdrew the appeal. ROOM. Finally, the context created by the contested decision merely demonstrates that the reason for the unlawfulness of the detention lies solely in the activities of the civilian aimed at guaranteeing the identity of the accused, which, as stated above, the Court considers to be lawful; And contrary to what the defense lawyer pointed out on the bench, they do not refer to a difference noted in the characteristics of the subject, his clothing or the absence of cash in his possession. FIFTH. that the Los Angeles Court of Guarantees clearly did not exceed its powers in finding that the detention was unlawful, since it merely complied with the provisions of art. 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ensure adequate protection for any person deprived of liberty, To that end, this is done precisely by examining the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. SECOND. Seventh, the Court considers that, in accordance with the established facts and the relevant legal rules, the finding of unlawfulness of the detention can be made only in the light of the evidence obtained in the context of that act and the evidence obtained as a result of that circumstance, that is to say, from 6.15 p.m.

on 11 July 2018; Therefore, there is no legal reason to exclude the testimonies of the victim … and the police officer doña … as well as the police report which she drew up containing the complaint and its annexes, as drawn up before the arrest. Similarly, the use of audio-visual means before arrest is common nowadays when taking over the images provided by surveillance cameras, which are abundant in streets and public places, including means of transport, taking into account in all these cases that the offences verified by these means and the physical characteristics of the person who commits them, They allow arrests in flagrante delicto by the police. SECOND. Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes any person to arrest any person caught in flagrante delicto, with the obligation to hand him over immediately to the nearest police, prosecutor`s office or judicial authority. 2. Arica Court of Appeal.

Exclusion from the test. The accused was arrested 12 hours after the crime. evidence obtained in violation of fundamental safeguards. Unlawful detention has effect only in respect of evidence obtained on that occasion and subsequently presented. ROOM. that the argument of the Public Prosecutor`s Office must be rejected in order for the interpretation of the hypothesis of flagrante delicto in this particular case to constitute an erroneous application of the rule of law cited, since the history of Law No. Paragraph 20.931 amending Article 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (f) must be rejected, Although the stated objective of this law has been to facilitate the effective enforcement of penalties for robbery, theft and reception offences and to improve the prosecution of these offences, there is no precedent to suggest that the legislator should allow legal operators to rely on broad interpretative criteria. as regards rules restricting guarantees of free movement and security of persons. and the oft-cited article 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. EIGHTH: With regard to the witness …

in view of the restraint exercised in the person of the accused … under article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he did not have the legal possibility to arrest (…), since more than twelve hours had elapsed since the time the offence was committed, so that his actions in this context violate the constitutional guarantee of due process, provided for in Article 19(3) of the offence. Basic Charter. The decision of the first instance declaring the detention of the accused unlawful is appealed. Having considered the foregoing, the Court upholds the judgment on appeal. In that regard, it should be noted that the agreement on the essential element for the configuration of the case of flagrante delicto, which alleges the existence of an audiovisual recording in which the detainee appears to have committed the alleged offence, was the subject of the detention review hearing since, as indicated in the corresponding audio recording, the Public Prosecutor`s Office was directly requested by the Court to: to prove the existence of images proving the correspondence of such evidence, which was ultimately not the case, since the Public Prosecutor`s Office itself acknowledged at that hearing that the images or frames in the investigation file recorded the accused at all times outside the victim`s home. It should be noted that the photograph taken by the detainee cannot be considered as an investigative measure, let alone as a photographic recognition, since it is an act committed by the civil in a public place within the collective movement in order to ensure the accusation of the victim in an act that can be considered logical and enforceable. so as not to fall into excesses or arbitrariness. One of the constituent elements referred to in Article 130 shall be a person who absconds from the place where the offence was committed and who is designated by the injured party or another person as the perpetrator or accomplice referred to in point (c). The Public Prosecutor`s Office appeals the decision of the Judge of Guarantees at a hearing in which he excluded all evidence presented by the Public Prosecutor`s Office. Having considered the foregoing, the Court of Appeal annuls the impugned decision only in so far as it excludes the testimony of witnesses. THIRD.

whereas, in the light of the foregoing, those convicted persons consider that the contested decision did not commit the error complained of by the Public Prosecutor`s Office, since, on the basis of the substantive elements included in the hearing reviewing the grounds and facts to be taken into account in the present case, it is not possible to verify reliably whether the accused appears in an audiovisual recording, who committed the robbery at the victim`s home, As the Bürgschaftsgerichtshof found, the case of flagrante delicto referred to in Article 130(f), according to which he is presumed to be in flagrante delicto, is not strictly satisfied:.