El proceso de querella en el Código Procesal Penal Peruano y el derecho al juez imparcial
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2023
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo
Abstract
El sistema procesal penal peruano es el resultado de una tendencia latinoamericana de reforma procesal que tiene como finalidad la división clara de funciones atribuidas a los partícipes del procedimiento de investigación y de juicio. El proceso penal acusatorio contenido en el marco del nuevo código procesal penal del 2004 – Decreto Legislativo Nro. 957, promovió la existencia de un proceso penal común en el que se diferencian tres etapas bien marcadas; así, quien participa como juez de garantías en la etapa de investigación preparatoria interviene también en etapa intermedia controlando la imputación, admisión de pruebas, solicitud de medidas cautelares y sobreseimiento de la causa. De modo tal, que quien controla dichas etapas no puede intervenir a nivel de juicio oral; ello, solo en el entendido de que admitir tal actuación implicaría el quebrantamiento del derecho al juez imparcial.
El presente trabajo analiza un conjunto de normas procesales que fueron establecidas para el trámite de la denominada acción privada de querella y concluye en la necesidad de realizar un control de constitucionalidad de las normas para luego habilitar la mutación normativa y consecuentemente la articulación intra sistemática de las normas que regulan ambos procesos: el proceso común y el proceso especial de querella.
La distinción entre persecución pública y persecución privada no puede fundar la existencia de un proceso penal que tengas mayores o menores garantías, ambos procedimientos penales creados con el único fin de obtener la verdad y la búsqueda de la justicia han de fundar sus instituciones respetando las garantías y derechos establecidos en el marco de un estado social y democrático de derecho.
The Peruvian criminal procedure system is the result of a Latin American trend of procedural reform whose purpose is the clear division of functions attributed to the participants in the investigation and trial procedure. The accusatory criminal process contained within the framework of the new criminal procedure code of 2004 - Legislative Decree No. 957, promoted the existence of a common criminal process in which three well-defined stages are differentiated; Thus, whoever participates as a guarantee judge in the preparatory investigation stage also intervenes in the intermediate stage, controlling the accusation, admission of evidence, request for precautionary measures and dismissal of the case. In such a way that whoever controls said stages cannot intervene at the oral trial level; this, only on the understanding that admitting such action would imply the violation of the right to an impartial judge. The present work analyzes a set of procedural norms that were established for the processing of the so-called private action of complaint and concludes on the need to carry out a constitutionality control of the norms to later enable the normative mutation and consequently the intra-systematic articulation of the norms. norms that regulate both processes: the common process and the special complaint process. The distinction between public persecution and private persecution cannot justify the existence of a criminal process that has greater or lesser guarantees, both criminal procedures created with the sole purpose of obtaining the truth and the search for justice must establish their institutions respecting the guarantees. and rights established within the framework of a social and democratic state of law.
The Peruvian criminal procedure system is the result of a Latin American trend of procedural reform whose purpose is the clear division of functions attributed to the participants in the investigation and trial procedure. The accusatory criminal process contained within the framework of the new criminal procedure code of 2004 - Legislative Decree No. 957, promoted the existence of a common criminal process in which three well-defined stages are differentiated; Thus, whoever participates as a guarantee judge in the preparatory investigation stage also intervenes in the intermediate stage, controlling the accusation, admission of evidence, request for precautionary measures and dismissal of the case. In such a way that whoever controls said stages cannot intervene at the oral trial level; this, only on the understanding that admitting such action would imply the violation of the right to an impartial judge. The present work analyzes a set of procedural norms that were established for the processing of the so-called private action of complaint and concludes on the need to carry out a constitutionality control of the norms to later enable the normative mutation and consequently the intra-systematic articulation of the norms. norms that regulate both processes: the common process and the special complaint process. The distinction between public persecution and private persecution cannot justify the existence of a criminal process that has greater or lesser guarantees, both criminal procedures created with the sole purpose of obtaining the truth and the search for justice must establish their institutions respecting the guarantees. and rights established within the framework of a social and democratic state of law.
Description
Keywords
Investigación, Código procesal penal, Decreto Legislativo, Medidas cautelares