Search

El presente documento tiene como propósito efectuar una aproximación, desde el punto de vista jurisprudencial y legal, del desarrollo que ha tenido la prueba oficiosa en el sistema penal adversarial de tendencia acusatoria, implementado en Colombia con la Ley 906 de 2004, a fin de establecer la tensión existente entre los principios de imparcialidad, igualdad de armas y legalidad, frente al principio de justicia material y en el contexto del rol del juez en el proceso. En efecto, esta es una de las discusiones que enfrentan quienes administran justicia y quienes acuden a ella para resolver los conflictos sociales, en la que se evidencia que la construcción de un sistema acusatorio es un proceso inacabado y en constante evolución. Para ello se hace necesario abordar no solo un concepto meramente legalista, sino que se requiere recabar en la filosofía misma del sistema penal acusatorio y las realidades en que este se aplica, para cumplir los cometidos sociales para los cuales fue creado.

El proceso penal actual aún arrastra muchas características del antiguo sistema inquisitivo en muchos países, de hecho, en la mayoría de ellos. Quizáas una de las principales es que la instrucción siga siendo una fase central del proceso, casi una especie de extraña primera instancia. Este artículo intenta identificar esos restos del pasado y propone una reforma global para que todo el proceso en su conjunto sea definitivamente acusatorio.

La sistemática inquisitoria nunca fue garantista; lo es sin duda la acusatoria. El garantismo no es insulso paternalismo. No tiene, claro está, compromisos morales. El garantismo, incluso el funcionalismo, es manera de abordar al hombre. El garantismo lo privilegia, porque reconoce que el hombre es la razón de ser del Estado. El hombre es miscible.

El presente análisis intenta demostrar la inconstitucionalidad de la figura del juez en la etapa de instrucción en el ámbito nacional, regida bajo el Código Procesal Penal de la Nación, en adelante CPPN, siendo su presencia y actividad, en este momento del proceso, violatoria de la garantía de imparcialidad judicial en especial, como también del principio de independencia judicial.

La presente investigación plantea la problemática de la prisionización masiva que generan las negociaciones en el sistema procesal penal de tendencia acusatoria, con marcada influencia norteamericana; aquí se sostiene que ese mecanismo, mediante el cual la Fiscalía busca la declaratoria masiva de culpabilidad de los imputados en plan de descongestionar el sistema represivo penal, tiene las caraterísticas más inquisitivas de un sistema de enjuiciamiento penal.

En unión de la tendencia a garantizar la imparcialidad judicial, encomendando la investigación de los delitos al fiscal, surgen dos cuestiones importantes:a) cómo se garantiza la imparcialidad del órgano acusador a la hora de efectuar el juicio de acusación; y b) las dificultades de la defensa para ejercitar sus derechos en el seno de dicho juicio de acusación. Ilustran estos temas, sendas referencias al proceso penal anglosajón y norteamericano; dos modelos internacionales, como son la CPI y los proyectos de la UE (Libro Verde y Corpus Iuris); y dos ejemplos de ordenamientos europeos, objetos de sendas reformas: Italia y EspañaTogether with the tendency to guarantee the juridical objectivity; commending the investigation of offences to the public prosecutor, two important issues arise: a) How the objectivity of the prosecuting organ is guaranteed at the time of_executing the prosecution trial. b) The difficulties of the defense to practice its rights in the frame of such_prosecution trial. Important references to the North American and Anglo-Saxon legal process illustrate this topic; two international models such as the CPI and the EU projects (Green Book and Corpus Iuris); and two examples of European ordinances, object of important reforms: Italy and Spain

This paper conducted a literature review aimed to identify the epistemological principles, social and political underlying the inquisitorial and adversarial procedural systems, which connect the characteristics of each of these systems, to investigate which of them matches the Criminal Procedure Code of Military (CPPM). The findings of the survey show that for a system to be characterize as libelous not just the separation of functions to accuse and judge. It is necessary to keep the separation for which the structure of dialectical process does not break, and the evidential initiative is always reserved for the parties. With regard to systems,the sticking point is the identification of its principle informer, for it is he who will determine if the system is inquisition regime or libelous, and not ancillary elements (orality, advertising, separation of activities). The process aims to reconstruction of a historical fact, the management of proof is erected the core founding or the unifying principle of a system. In this context, devices in the CPPM to give judge powers investigative denote the adoption of the principle inquisitive, who founded a system inquisition regime, because they represent a breach of equality, contradictory, the very structure of the dialectic process. Consequently, fulminam the main guarantee of urisdiction, which is the impartiality of the judge. With this, it is concluded that the CPPM is essentially inquisition regime. This study also (re)thinking the need of dichotomization of criminal proceedings Brazilian, perquirindo if the duality of legislation on criminal proceedings is consistent with a current view of the process as a constitutional model that ensures the enforcement of fundamental rights by bases principiológicas jointly agreed to any process.

O presente artigo visa mostrar comoo modelo de processo penal acusatório é o quemais se coaduna com os princípios e garantiasconstitucionais, sendo, portanto, dever do MinistérioPúblico, enquanto órgão defensor doregime democrático e dos preceitos constitucionais,implementar uma nova práxis processualna qual esse modelo seja privilegiado, apesardos limites da nossa legislação processualpenal, que ainda reproduz muito do modeloinquisitorial e autoritário.Abstract: The present article aims atdemonstrating how the accusatory penalprocess is the one which better embodiesconstitutional principles and guarantees,being, therefore, duty of the Public Ministry,whose objective is to defend the democraticregime and the rule of law, to implement anew practice in penal process law in whichthis model may be privileged, in spite oflimitations imposed by Brazilian penal processlaw, which still reproduces much of theinquisitional and authoritarian model.

This chapter maintains that the adversarial and inquisitorial categories have been more central to comparative criminal procedure than it has been previously acknowledged because they have contributed to constitute it as a transnational field by reflecting and restricting its main theoretical trends and thematic interests. The article identifyies the main theoretical traditions of this field by mapping commentators' and courts' uses of the adversarial and inquisitorial distinction, and shows that even the main comparative criminal procedure alternative approaches are operating within these same theoretical traditions. The article suggests that the adversarial-inquisitorial dichotomy has also contributed to limit the type of themes that the field has covered. Finally, the article sketches a number of ways in which comparative criminal procedure may transcend the long theoretical and thematic shadow of the adversarial and inquisitorial categories and thus expand the type of positive and normative insights it can bring to our understanding of the criminal process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Derecho Penal y Criminologia is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departamento de Derecho Penal y Criminologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)