La valoración de la habitualidad delictiva en la determinación de la pena y su vulneración al principio de presunción de inocencia
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2024
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo
Abstract
La presente investigación tiene como objetivo general determinar qué derecho fundamental se vulnera con la valoración de la habitualidad delictiva como circunstancia agravante cualificada para determinar la pena en el proceso penal peruano. La investigación de campo comprende 15 carpetas de los requerimientos fiscales emitidos en las fiscalías penales del distrito fiscal de la libertad 2013-2019, de los cuales en 05 se aplicó la habitualidad y las otras 10 para establecer la habitualidad. Para complementar la información principal, se aplicó una encuesta a 30 fiscales penalistas de La Libertad, respecto de la agravante cualificada de la habitualidad. Para la recolección de datos se utilizaron las técnicas del análisis documental, la encuesta y el fichaje. Los datos se procesaron estadísticamente para obtener los resultados que se presentan en tablas y figuras. Para la discusión de los resultados se utilizaron los métodos análisis- síntesis e inductivo- deductivo, dogmático y hermenéutico. Los resultados verificaron la hipótesis de investigación por cuanto la reincorporación y consecuente aplicación de la agravante cualificada de la habitualidad en nuestro sistema procesal penal, a efectos de incrementar la pena, vulnera al derecho de presunción de inocencia, predominando la presunción de culpabilidad, dado que al imputado se le considera culpable hasta que se emita una sentencia declarando su estado de inocencia.
The general objective of this investigation is to determine which fundamental right is violated with the assessment of criminal habituality as a qualified aggravating circumstance to determine the penalty in the Peruvian criminal process. The field investigation includes 15 folders of the tax requirements issued in the criminal prosecutor's offices of the fiscal district of La Libertad 2013-2019, of which in 05 the habituality was applied and the other 10 to establish the habituality. To complement the main information, a survey was applied to 30 criminal prosecutors from La Libertad, regarding the qualified aggravating circumstance of habituality. Document analysis, survey and recording techniques were used to collect data. The data were processed statistically to obtain the results presented in tables and figures. To discuss the results, the methods of analysis-synthesis and inductive-deductive, dogmatic and hermeneutical were used. The results verified the research hypothesis in that the reinstatement and consequent application of the qualified aggravating circumstance of habituality in our criminal procedural system, for the purposes of increasing the penalty, violates the right of presumption of innocence, predominating the presumption of guilt, given that The accused is considered guilty until a sentence is issued declaring his innocence.
The general objective of this investigation is to determine which fundamental right is violated with the assessment of criminal habituality as a qualified aggravating circumstance to determine the penalty in the Peruvian criminal process. The field investigation includes 15 folders of the tax requirements issued in the criminal prosecutor's offices of the fiscal district of La Libertad 2013-2019, of which in 05 the habituality was applied and the other 10 to establish the habituality. To complement the main information, a survey was applied to 30 criminal prosecutors from La Libertad, regarding the qualified aggravating circumstance of habituality. Document analysis, survey and recording techniques were used to collect data. The data were processed statistically to obtain the results presented in tables and figures. To discuss the results, the methods of analysis-synthesis and inductive-deductive, dogmatic and hermeneutical were used. The results verified the research hypothesis in that the reinstatement and consequent application of the qualified aggravating circumstance of habituality in our criminal procedural system, for the purposes of increasing the penalty, violates the right of presumption of innocence, predominating the presumption of guilt, given that The accused is considered guilty until a sentence is issued declaring his innocence.
Description
Keywords
HUMANITIES and RELIGION::History and philosophy subjects::History subjects::History