Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://staging-repositorio.uprit.edu.pe/handle/UPRIT/37

Browse

Settings

Has files: YesSubject: search.filters.subject.Flagrancia

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Item,
    Inconstitucionalidad parcial del artículo 447 del código Procesal Penal.
    (Universidad Privada de Trujillo, 2019)
    De los Rios Ocampos, Rosa
    ;
    Cruz Vegas, Guillermo Alexander
    The subject of the investigation was entitled: “Partial unconstitutionality of article 447 of the criminal procedure code”, this problem was developed taking into account that, if the prosecutor requests the initiation of the immediate process, the investigator being detained, the prosecutor having requested the Preventive detention, it is imperative to keep the detainee's detention until the sole opening hearing of the immediate process is carried out, since it would be illogical to grant the accused freedom, since he would escape; however, the problem arises when the prosecutor, being the one investigated with a detention in flagrance or by preliminary judicial detention, requests the initiation of immediate process but without requiring the imposition of a preventive detention, in that case, he would not have to the accused remains in detention until the hearing of said hearing. Given the problem described, the following was formulated as a statement of the problem: "Why is it unconstitutional to maintain the detention of the accused until the hearing for the opening of the immediate process is held, in the event that preventive detention is not required?" ; being the general objective: to determine why it is unconstitutional, the detention of the defendant is held until the opening hearing of the immediate process is carried out, in the event that preventive detention is not required. The following was formulated as a hypothesis: "It is unconstitutional because the right to freedom of the accused is violated, since the accused is held in detention, when there is no justification for continuity in this state." Through the hermeneutical method and with the use of documentary analysis, we analyzed how in practice this immediate process has been applied (cassation and plenary agreement), the instrument was the record of documentary analysis; with which the hypothesis was verified and concluded that the prescription contained in article 447 subsection 1 of the criminal procedure code is unconstitutional, which establishes that it is necessary to maintain the detention of the accused until the opening hearing of immediate proceedings is made, thus, no preventive detention has been requested, because the right to freedom is violated, since freedom is restricted to a person without justification.