[ad_1]
The Twenty-ninth Civil Court of Santiago sentenced Cbad 13 to pay compensation of $ 25,000,000 (twenty-five million pesos) to an illegally registered complainant whose image was broadcast in a program of research.
In the decision, Judge Cecilia Morales Lacoste accepted the lawsuit deducted against the TV channel for the unauthorized recording and broadcasting of images in the program "On Your Own Trap", broadcast on April 12, 2013 , based on the resolution issued by the Oral Criminal Court of Puente Alto which condemned the chain's leaders for their responsibility in the crime.
"This, rightly badyzing the commission of an illegal act on the part of the subsidiary of Cbad 13 SA, is credited in these cars that Ms. Maria Alejandra Quijada Torres, Mr. Sergio Fabián Órdenes León and Mr. Rodrigo Andrés Zúñiga Contreras, committed the crime of Raising facts and private conversations in a particular place without the permission of the party concerned, provided for and sanctioned in article 161-A of paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, for which they were sentenced to the penalty and fine pronounced by the Criminal Court of Puente Alto in RIT 31-2016, already appreciated in this proceeding, "the judgment of the Civil Court is holding.
Resolution which adds: "That the defendant has defended itself in pointing out that in these same proceedings Mr. Rodrigo Alfonso Leiva Rojas, executive producer of Channel 13, and Mr. César Marcelo Pérez Maldonado, journalistic editor of Channel 13, were acquitted of the offense of dissemination of images of privacy, provided for and punished by Article 161-A of the Penal Code, as for them, they have not been verified the all of the standard budgets provided for in this standard. "
" (…) of the – continuing – study of the award pronounced in its RIT 31-20165 dated June 6, 2016, the argument Advanced by Channel 13 can be verified, since the program's producer and editor-in-chief were acquitted on that occasion, while it was not proven that they knew that the recordings that were disseminated were obtained without the permission of the victim, and the court stated that "If no other criminal character is present, he must necessarily acquit Rodrigo Alfonso Leiva Rojas and César Marcelo Pérez Maldonado."
"Without prejudice to the above, in this proceeding, was prosecuted for the responsibility of A foreign act exclusively for the crime incurred by Maria Alejandra Quijada Torres, Mr. Sergio Fabián Órdenes León and Mr. Rodrigo Andrés Zúñiga Contreras, who, as previously stated, were actually convicted, and not with respect to the workers absolutes, so that the claim of the defendant will be rejected, this It is established that in the case of the existence of damages, it is appropriate to apply the law of responsibility provided for in article 2.320 of the Code to the defendant society, Cbad 13 ", adds: […] (1965)" (…) to the full extent and without prejudice The foregoing, it must be kept in mind that, although the diffusion recording If obtained without the consent of the victim, it was not criminally sanctioned, as if the accused had been acquitted for lack of evidence of fraud, the truth is that, the fact that pre-broadcast was precisely recording of these images without prior authorization, and this indeed indeed has been sanctioned as a criminal offense, being decisive for this conviction that the origin and the causal link between the activity of the dependents of the defendants and the alleged damage invoked by the plaintiff, is an unlawful act that is criminally sanctioned, he would also be liable He said: [TRADUCTION] "From another point of view, it is proven that". they were sentenced to death by channel 13, because it was precisely his workers who, in the exercise of their functions, had behaved in such a way ". the dependents of the required television channel, which for the fulfillment of a program that must be prepared and produced for that it broadcasts, they recorded without permission of the requested, questions regarding their privacy and family, constituting an illegal fact of which the defendant has not proved the defense authorized by law, and has not been invalidated by the defendant, for example, that in the instructions and limitations that must be given to their dependents, for carrying out, preparing and obtaining information programs that subsequently issue, must proceed in accordance with the legislation in force and that the law of the branch their allows without access to the information that is found in "The private and family sphere of people, using deception."
"Recordings that were also broadcast and thus pbaded into the sphere of public knowledge, which would have produced the damages charged by the actress, and this regardless of its broadcast by the dependents of the requested channel , it was not sanctioned by lack of knowledge of these, that the recordings were without authorization ", concludes
<! – Download attached document of this news ->
[ad_2]
Source link
