Presumption of innocence. Statement co-defendant

Commentary on the Supreme Court of 5 June 2012

Abstract

Case law on presumption of innocence and their possible innervation by circumstantial evidence. A co-defendant's statement incriminating another can not establish itself as the sole basis for a criminal conviction: that could be regarded as evidence that forms the conviction of the Court in this regard, external data are needed to sufficiently corroborate the statements of the accused. It can be said, that when doubt exists objectively guarantor must act the effect of the constitutional presumption with subsequent acquittal of the accused. A co-defendant's statement could not serve to corroborate that of another defendant. The credibility is not confirmed but the fact stated tested under the requirement of the security of the presumption of innocence. It denies the extent of corroboration to the lack of credibility of the explanation or alibi. The subtype aggravated Article 165 of the Penal Code (unlawful detention or kidnapping in this case when the victim is incapable), requires the existence of objective evidence of a condition that allows the victim unable to consider in the sense that gives expression to this article 25 of the Criminal Code, that is, that is because of his illness, unable to self-government. Moreover it is a subtype aggravated claiming, as a subjective element, the perception that budget rate target, under whose background information, the agent decides to perform his typical behavior. The nature of the offense involves a situation of hegemony superiority makes component I insist on their typicality and therefore estimate the aggravating violate the provisions of article 67 of the Penal Code which proscribe the principle of non bis in idem. The score card usage can not be subsumed in the crime of theft. Obtaining the credit card with which the defendants obtained money in the cashier derived from a subtraction fact violent, leading to the qualification of such fact as robbery. But, when carrying out the second subtraction, not only reiterates no action is not violent, not even card act of empowerment, and in possession of the accused, but the person who had died had been stolen. The proper characterization of the act requires consideration as crime of fraud, but not robbery.