A few months ago, I shared in this medium some notes on “the principle of criminal immediacy: limits and challenges in legal practice”, bringing the reader closer to how this principle has a clear implication in the configuration of the resource system, with special reference to STC 167/2002, of September 18, as well as the 2015 reform of the LECrim.
In accordance with these jurisprudential and legislative milestones, we concluded that the review of acquittal sentences can never be based on the error in the evaluation of the evidence due to mere discrepancy. Now, does this mean that acquittal sentences can never be reviewed?
As we anticipated in previous installments, review is possible, although limited to very specific cases: (1) when there is an incomplete or irrational assessment of the evidence; (2) when the incriminating evidence is documentary and, therefore, does not require immediacy; (3) through violation of law when the reason responds to legal issues, without modifying the factual account of proven facts.
Through this text we present some notes that, as a result of the most recent jurisprudence, show us the possibilities of reviewing acquittal sentences through the incomplete or irrational assessment of the evidence.
And, although we are faced with reasons that hardly succeed in daily practice, we find exceptional cases in which they do have a place. Proof of this is the Ruling of the Supreme Court (Second Chamber) 1048/2024, of November 20, which upholds an appeal filed against acquittal.
The High Court considers that we are faced with an unreasonable and illogical resolution, based exclusively on a subjective criterion of the trial court and that, therefore, there is an effective violation of the right to effective judicial protection. The consequence was the annulment of the sentence and the obligation of the Court a quo to issue a new resolution in which the perceived deficits were corrected. It is important to highlight that the acquittal and conviction sentences undoubtedly start from an asymmetrical position.
It is established jurisprudence of our Constitutional Court (TC) that the motivation of the sentences, required under article 120.3 CE, is a requirement independent of the meaning of the ruling. However, a more rigorous canon of motivation is required in condemnatory resolutions, given that they affect such essential fundamental rights as the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence.
However, this asymmetry does not mean that the motivation for an acquittal sentence can be limited to a ruling devoid of legal reasoning. If this were the case, we would find ourselves facing an arbitrary and unfounded resolution.
And this motivation based on Law constitutes an extension of the right to effective judicial protection, in its aspect as a guarantor against the arbitrariness of public powers.
When this guarantee is violated, the effective possibility of revoking an acquittal sentence opens up. The TC, in Plenary 1/2020, of January 14, establishes that “those in which it is proven that they start from non-existent or patently erroneous premises or that follow an argumentative development involved in such logical failures cannot be admitted as motivated and reasoned decisions.” magnitude that lead to evidence that they cannot be considered based on any of the reasons given”.
Thus, jurisdictional control does not focus on the adequacy of the evaluation of the evidence, but on the validity of the evidentiary reasoning used by the trial court.
The possibilities of review, logically, are greatly limited out of respect for the principle of immediacy of the evidence. Let us not forget that the knowledge that the reviewing court will have of the body of evidence can never be assimilated to that of the trial court, which has been able to directly learn about an unrepeatable practice of evidence.
For this reason, this control of rationality can only estimate the nullity of the acquittal sentence in two cases: (1) when we find an incomplete assessment of the body of evidence, either because evidence taken is omitted, or because it has been incorrectly inadmissible (because it is considered invalid or illegitimate; (2) when the valuation is irrational, arbitrary. However, this irrationality cannot be limited to quantitative criteria or a reconstruction of the valuation. the test will be irrational only when “criteria for attributing value to test data are used that respond to absurd epistemic formulas, to unidentifiable maxims of experience or to naked magical, unknown or inexplicable thinking.”
In this sense, in the aforementioned STS of November that declares the annulment of the acquittal sentence, serious deficits are revealed in the instance: it is established that it gave greater value to what was declared by the accused in the face of other evidence, departing from the maximum of common experience; that statements that were not contradictory were considered contradictory; that significant evidence of legal reasoning was omitted; that the lack of credibility attributed to the complainant was not adequately motivated…
Thus, although we have seen that the principle of immediacy strictly limits the review of acquittal sentences, this principle is not absolute. Respect for the motivation and reasonableness of resolutions acts as an indispensable counterweight to judicial arbitrariness. Effective judicial protection requires, in these exceptional cases, the possibility of revoking an acquittal sentence when its reasoning contradicts the logic of reason.
#Review #acquittal #sentences #incomplete #irrational #assessment #evidence
