The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed against the sentence awarded by the Linares Criminal Oral Trial Court, which sentenced the defendant to six years’ imprisonment in the minimum degree as a criminal of illegal drug trafficking.
On April 11, 2018, after a preliminary investigation by OS-7 of the Carabineros, two defendants were arrested while exchanging 2.9 kg of cocaine in the Yerbas Buenas commune. In addition to drugs, cash and a cell phone were seized, and police officers were able to prove that the smuggling operation was coordinated from prison by another co-defendant.
As a result of the same investigation, on April 19, 2018, at 5:25 p.m., OS-7 personnel entered the defendant’s home located in the commune of San Javier, finding various nylon packages totaling 3.8 kg of cocaine base, for which he was arrested Gone and brought to justice.
Against the conviction, the defendant filed an appeal invoking the grounds contained in letter a) of Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for violation of due process.
The Appellant submitted that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has presented an allegation which does not allege any fact, due to which the Guarantee Court erroneously granted him a period of 24 hours to rectify the lapse. Subsequently, the same court declared the nullity of all proceedings and the definitive dismissal of the case, which was set aside by the appeals court, which is why the defendant’s defense counsel stated that he had the necessary legal assistance to prepare. There was not enough time. to face an oral test; Therefore, it requests the cancellation of the oral trial and sentence, as well as the conduct of a new trial that excludes all evidence illegally provided by the Prosecutor’s Office in order to begin the oral trial, which Occurs after illegal action. The allegation has been made because the defendant was not involved in it.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for quashing, after reasoning that, “(…) in the case under review, the omission of the office of the Public Prosecutor is not disputed, nor is it disputed that it was rectified within the period was fixed by the Court and, in particular, the Appellant has not explained how this prevented the Respondent and his counsel from effectively preparing and developing their defense at the oral trial preparation hearing as well as at the oral trial. Stopped.
In this sense, the ruling states that, “(…) Ultimately, the defense argues only legal violations, ignoring that the grounds for nullification are much more demanding, as it is not “substantial” to the “fundamental”. Seeks to demonstrate a breach of “guarantees”, which have not been met in the species”.
In light of the foregoing, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal to set aside the sentence imposed.
The decision was agreed with the vote against Minister Manuel Valderrama, who urged to accept the arbitration and annul the conviction, considering, “(…) an additional period to submit the charges to the Ministry of Public By giving, the Court of Guarantee made a wrong application of the criteria contained in the fifth paragraph of Article 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since in this case the charge was actually presented, therefore the assumption required by the above Article 247 to empower the Court to be called additional Duration”.