The Second Chamber of the Courtroom of Appeals of Rancagua – composed of ministers Ricardo Pairicán García, Pedro Caro Romero and Miguel Ángel Santibáñez Artigas – ratified the contested decision issued by the Assure Courtroom of the regional capital, which rejected the request to subject a definitive dismissal in one of many expenses of bribery imputed to the suspended mayor of Rancagua Juan Ramón Godoy, associated to the alleged fee of almost $7,000,000 in money – to make sure the awarding of contracts for a Christmas truthful and dinner for municipal officers – {that a} businessman would have made to the then municipal authority. In response to Godoy’s protection, these details usually are not confirmed.
Allow us to do not forget that Godoy can also be accused by the Public Prosecutor’s Workplace because the creator of the crimes of misappropriation of public funds, tax fraud, cash laundering, tax crimes and repeated aggravated bribery.
In its decision, the court docket states: “that, to start with, it must be remembered that so as to decree a definitive dismissal, it’s essential to have full certainty in regards to the concurrence of the alleged trigger, on this case, that offered for in letter a) of article 250 of the Felony Process Code, relative to the truth that the investigated truth doesn’t represent against the law, as a result of the decision issued to this impact places an finish to the process definitively and completely by means of the impact of res judicata,” the ruling states.
The doc provides that: “On this identical sense, this Courtroom has held that the ‘closing dismissal constitutes an early methodology of ending the investigation in an irregular method, within the sense that it doesn’t require the verification of an oral trial, when the proof of a authorized motive not solely makes its pronouncement pointless, however justifies the exclusion of the trial, which is why it should take care of categorical circumstances that require a certainty that goes past the existence of an inexpensive doubt that permits for an acquittal within the oral trial’ (…)”.
The ruling additionally states that: “(…) the dearth of prison typification of the details investigated should clearly seem from the background of the investigation, it not being possible for mentioned conclusion to come up from the evaluation of the evidentiary advantage of the weather of conviction gathered up to now within the investigation, because the protection claims, since such an train is correct to the trial stage and to not this early methodology of ending the investigation in an irregular method.”
“On this case, it’s clear that the partial closing dismissal requested by the protection can’t be accepted, since such request is predicated on the truth that the details of the third chapter of the formalization usually are not confirmed and never on the truth that they’re atypical. Consequently, the protection confuses the absence of atypicality with the alleged lack of proof of the unlawful act, thus looking for an early acquittal, which is clearly not applicable for this irregular means of ending the prison course of,” he concludes.
#Courtroom #confirmed #ruling #rejected #partial #dismissal #Juan #Ramón #Godoy
