Rasgos Inquisitivos En La Etapa Del Juzgamiento En El Nuevo Código Procesal Penal Peruano

Content Provider	Semantic Scholar
Author	Azucena, Rosas Zavaleta Rosario Andree, Villarreal Guzman Oscar
Copyright Year	2016
Abstract	Let us start from the premise that an accusatory system can be defined as that process model in that there is no court as is the public prosecutor, whom is entrusted the power of the exercise of criminal action to bring an indictment before the criminal court, with reasoned basis and based on sources validas- test against crime subject agent properly identified. That is, the idea of the division of roles and functions between the researcher and who should fail appears. The Public Ministry corresponds the requesting function, the function persecutor of the crime, so it is the holder of the exercise of public prosecution and the burden of proof; while it is up to the court the decision-making function, the function of failure. It is precisely in this division of roles between the investigating body and the body responsible for sentencing, in which lies the substantial difference between the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system. The first of these models, brings a set of very important principles which are their guiding lines and the pillars of its existence; these principles are equality of arms, judicial impartiality, contradiction, presumption of innocence, among others. The inquisitorial system is the opposite of the accusatory model of criminal procedure, this system has the characters the confusion of roles, lack of judicial impartiality, lack of equality of arms, escrituralidad, no contradiction, reserve, presumption of guilt, among others. The inquisitorial model, embodied in the Code of Criminal Procedure, is being overcome in the country, to make way for the adversarial system, through the New Criminal Procedure Code; however, exist in this new penal catalog adjective, remnants or remnants of the inquisitorial system, we can not banish that is found, institutions as proof of trade, the questioning by the judge the accused and the admission of rejected forms of evidence Control the Hearing Indictment, which are contrary to the fundamental tenets and principles underlying accusatory system in the country; reasons for this research, which aims to provide greater insight into this controversial subject, for the sake of better administration of justice by the courts. Is so general and primary objective of this research have to demonstrate infringement and incongruity generated by the presence of inquisitorial features in the functions of Judge Judging in our new Criminal Procedure Code (Stage trial); specifically, whether the powers-of inquisitorial court that give the Judge Articles 88, subsection 3 in fine; 373, subsection; and 385 ° of the new Criminal Procedure Code, denature the new process model with adversarial accusatory trend. For this, and as part of the research that has been developed techniques were used as documentary collection, signing, normative interpretation, and interview. Regarding the latter, we mean that consists of 3 questions, which are intended to demonstrate the irrelevance of the burdensome powers enjoyed by the Judging Judges under the new Peruvian criminal procedure model. At the end of our investigation, we arrive at valid conclusions given by our hypothesis and corroborate our goals because those inquisitive performances shed their impartiality to judge; however in the adversarial system only it operates an impartial judge, this being an organ above parties, which must decide based on the evidence offered by the relevant procedural subjects, because as prescribed by law is the prosecutor who has the burden of proof ie once the Attorney formulates indictment, the maximum arsenal should be sought evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, because this does not have to prove anything to assist the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental right. And if the evidence of the prosecution is not strong, you must acquit him because there is doubt about guilt and no certainty of this. For the adversarial process is a model in which the parties are actors of it should be absolutely prepared to play the role that corresponds to them, so if a prosecutor does not offer the correct forms of evidence or if it does interrogation under the rules of oral litigation to prove the guilt of the accused TRIAL-in should simply lose the case because of their poor preparation and diligence to investigate. And finally, we show that the Court can not provide proof, because if it had this power, he would break his investiture impartial judge (at trial should be an impartial third party) and would become contaminated Judge, which would be after finding his truth; the only should assess the evidence offered by the parties during the Middle Stage (Control Hearing Indictment), which, through oral and contradictory debate, have been admitted by the judge of the preliminary investigation.
File Format	PDF HTM / HTML
Alternate Webpage(s)	http://dspace.unitru.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/UNITRU/5217/T-16-2186%20rosas%20zavaleta%20rosario%20azucena-villarreal%20guzm%C3%A1n%20oscar%20andree.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
Language	English
Access Restriction	Open
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article