[ad_1]
The Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) it canceled the decision published on 6 April 2017 by the 1st Court. first instance on the basis of the trial of the criminal judicial circuit of Zulia, extension Santa Bárbara, declared "not guilty" by the citizen Wilfredo José Villafañe Padilla.
Villafañe was accused of committing the crimes of "co-perpetrator of willful homicide and sexual violence", features of Venezuelan law, to the detriment of those who, in life, responded to Yoselin's name Colón Montiel.
In sentence No. 351, it is ordered to reinstate the case in the state in which a court of first instance with jurisdiction over crimes of violence against women from the judicial circuit of criminal justice. Zulia, different from the one he knew, was organizing the oral trial to make a new decision regardless of the flaws that led to the annulment of the decision.
Add the decision of which the rapporteur is Judge Francia Coello González, who maintains in force the decision of 30 September 2010 by the first court of first instance on the basis of the trial of the judicial circuit of Zulia, which imposed on the citizen Wilfredo José Villafañe Padilla measure preventive judicial deprivation of liberty, in accordance with Article 250 (current Article 236) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The facts at the origin of the case occurred when citizen Yoselin Alexander Colón Montiel was in the main street of the San Juan area of El Batey, in the municipality of Sucre del Zulia, and that three people arrived in a vehicle allegedly driven by Wilfredo Padilla, who allegedly sexually assaulted her, sliced her throat and left her body in the Monte Adentro area of the aforementioned municipality.
(Read also: Minister Néstor Reverol: The crime rate in the country has been reduced by 28.4%)
The Appeals Chamber found, inter alia, the violation of effective judicial protection, holding that what was said in the acquittal sentence "does not lead to an apparent motivation that undermines the procedural safeguards, violating the principle of unity and the need for evidence – such as those directly related to the fact that is the subject of the process – since an essential part of the burden of evidence has was rejected without any explicit, sufficient and well-founded motive that would allow the exercise of balance and fairness in the role of the legality of the evidence … ".
If you wish to receive this and other information on your mobile phone, download the telegram, enter the link. https://t.me/globovision_oficial and click on + Join. It also follows our profile in Instagram, Facebook and Twitter.
[ad_2]
Source link
