Homicide and injuries : Failures of the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras

The undersigned Secretary General of the Supreme Court of
Justice CERTIFY the judgment which reads: "IN
Tegucigalpa, Municipality of the Central District, February 1
of the eleven thousand, through the SALA CRIMINAL, comprising
the Magistrates CARLOS DAVID CALIX VALLECILLO, in its capacity
Coordinator, RAUL A. HENRIQUEZ Interiano and JAMES A.
HERNANDEZ CALIX, sentencing hearing the Appeal
Infringement of Cassation Law and Breach of Form
brought against the judgment dated February 6 of
two thousand and eight, issued by the trial court of
Tegucigalpa, Francisco Morazán, whereby: a) He condemned
and W. A. S. G., guilty of the crime of MURDER
DEATH detriment of J. S. S., the principal penalty
ancillary disqualification and CIVIL BAN
for the duration of the main sentence; b) He acquitted W.
A. S. G. the crime of Illegal Carrying of Arms detriment
the cassation appeal, Advocate J. C. S. V., acting
their status as public prosecutor.- They are PARTIES:
The R lawyer. M. A. U., in his capacity as representative of
Prosecutors as recurrent. WHEREAS I.- The
Cassation appeal Infringement Law and
Form breach meets the requirements of the
law, therefore be admissible, being from
rule on the legality or illegality of it.
II.- "PROVEN FACTS: FIRST: The twenty-third day of June
of six thousand, approximately six p.m., the
Lady J. S. he was in his bedroom house located
in the village …, Township Guaimaca, department
Francisco Morazán, in the company of her husband A. S. G., their
minor children and her neighbor O. A. M., when his cousin came,
the defendant W. A. S. G. drunk holding in his
a gun hand revolver, caliber 38, series
C914500, asking you to give away a glass of water, request to which his cousin who agreed when delivering the
Glass asked him to hand over the gun and she
would keep, whereupon the defendant discharged his weapon and
he shot his cousin causing a wound in the chest
losing life. Immediately the defendant withdrew from
instead being captured moments later by neighbors
They came to the cries of calls for help from husband
the victim. SECOND: The firearm carrying the accused
described above, is owned by Mr. J. The. M. M. whom the
accused had given the amount of five thousand lempiras
by way of purchase, adeudándole to date
They followed the above narrated facts, the sum of one thousand
lempiras. "III.- The appellant, J Lawyer. C. S. V.,
developed its appeal as follows:
FIRST LEGAL ground of appeal: "Application
Undue Article 121 tied or directly with
Article 13 (Third and fourth paragraphs), both the Code
Criminal of the Republic of Honduras). Precept Authorizing:
Article 360 the Criminal Procedure Code. Reason Exhibition
of Cassation: Article 121 the Penal Code provides that
"The author of a manslaughter is punishable by three to
five years. If the author had committed the act as
consequence of being drunk or having
used drugs prohibited by law, shall be punishable with
imprisonment from five to eight years ". In return, the
article 13 the same code indicates that, "The offense can be
by action or omission need not be
intentional the fault. The offense is intentional when the result
reflects the intention to be had when running or when the
author knows, or is obliged to know, that as a result of
default action and there is a possibility of occurrence
a constitutive harmful effect of crime, notwithstanding which
running and accept the fact, therefore, the consequences
arising therefrom. The offense is guilty when
result of recklessness, incompetence or negligence or when
product of the failure of a law, of regulations or orders, resolutions or duties, attended the
circumstances and the personal circumstances of the offender. The
culpable offense is punishable only in the cases expressly
determined by law. After quoting in full the fact
first tested continues to show that the Declaration of
Proven facts related to the defendant "flipped his gun and
he shot his cousin causing a wound in the chest
losing their lives ". Conduct that describes the factum
relates a volitional element which manifests when running the
punishable rebound action: – First, actuates the gun: the
prepared and arranged to shoot; – Second, triggers
weapon. We would remind you to bring determine whether
a crime is guilty, it is necessary initially if
the act in fraudulently executed, since fraud
excludes guilt. The study of this case is evidence
undoubtedly that the action taken by the defendant, S.
G., responds to its intention, conclusion drawn with
safely when considering the sentence the accused
express moments before shooting the victim: "Before
to give it better I'll shoot ". Based on the above,
follows that the action was executed maliciously prosecuted
and therefore can not be considered culpable offense,
as we apreciase the Sentencing. Does not contain the
Table Factual description of any action that leads to
infer that the defendant had acted recklessly,
incompetence or negligence, or as a result of the failure
of a law, regulation, orders or duties. Conversely,
and as already outlined, clearly describes an action
conscious in response to the request made him the victim
to betray him the gun for uprising. About this
aspect of the facts are evidence evacuated
lawfully and valued in a positive sense concediéndoseles
credibility, that before the first request of the victim
to betray him the gun, the accused stated that he preferred
kill before handing his gun. By insisting the
affected ask the weapon, he reacted first actuating
percussion mechanism and then, shooting with murderous intent. The defendant did not act recklessly
they describe the proven facts conscious behavior
the consequences of the action, and at the same time devoid of
ignorance of the danger posed by his actions.
Neither the accused acted with incompetence, because their reaction
the request to provide the gun was immediate and the
enough skill to operate it and shoot it to
cause the desired result, thus demonstrating that it had the
sufficient and necessary skill to operate the
artifact. He can not even validly argued that the
defendant had been negligent, it was not in
the exercise of a profession, office, lawful and valid skill
which forced him to take precautions when shooting
his gun. It was not required by statute or
Regulatory firing gun, nor was forced or
legitimate received orders to shoot. In other words, the
actions of Mr. S. G. fails subsumed in
assumptions contained in Article 121 Penal Code,
in such a way that the court to rectify well
incurred a misapplication of that rule, and by
be linked its invocation and application of Article 13 of
same code, This second provision has also been
improperly applied. Therefore, the Public Ministry
considered burdensome and submits the ruling of the Honorable
Superior Court recursive claim to be formalized
favorably to the same rule in. SECOND
Ground of appeal: "Missing Application
Article 116 the Criminal Code of the Republic of Honduras. "
Precept Authorizing: Article 360 the Criminal Procedure Code.
Reason Exhibition of Cassation: The Statement of Facts
Tested, transcripts previously, describe an action
attributed to the Accused, which has not been thwarted or
undermined by the defense during the trial, and following
which is fully established that the accused powered
his gun and shot his cousin leaving an injury on
Chest, losing this life. This behavior is subsumed in
the offense corresponding to manslaughter, embodied in article 116 the Criminal Code of the Republic of
Honduras, in the full text reads: "Whoever killed another
a person not attend the circumstances mentioned
in the following sections of this chapter, commits the
criminal manslaughter and incur the penalty of fifteen to
twenty years of imprisonment ". The offense is set when W.
S. G. killed J. S., on first. He did so without
concur the circumstances mentioned in the other
Articles in the first chapter of Title One Book
Second Honduran Penal Code, within which
includes the aforementioned article 116. It has been proven so
undisputed that the defendant caused the death of J. S. by
an accurate shot gun without the fact
occur as a result of negligence, incompetence or
negligence, or as a result of violations of the law,
regulation, orders or duties. Let's see in detail how
elements of the offense contained in Article 116 of
Penal Code concur in fact prosecuted: a) Who, in
this case Mr S. It is the active subject; b) To kill a
person; the passive subject of the action has been J. S.; c) Without
attend the circumstances prescribed in the articles of
117 to the 125 Penal Code; Here it is important to note that
none of these circumstances concurs in the unjust and
especially that contained in Article 121 as we have
explained in the previous plea. Under the conduct
I tested is subsumed in the offense that corresponds to
manslaughter, and by failing to apply the Judge's
this standard, a vice that leads to the receipt is set
this action. The Public Prosecutor formalized by
both its recursive claim and respectfully requests the
High Court ruling favorably to it. DEL
Ground of appeal: "Factual and Motivations
Legal Deficient. "Precept Authorizing: Article 362
(Numeral 3) the Criminal Procedure Code. Reason Exhibition
of Cassation: The Judge stated in the third paragraph of
failure chapter dedicated to its Legal Foundations, that the death of the victim does not correspond to the intention of the
accused, because their emotional state influenced their ability
self-, in his capacity of premeditation of the fact,
absenting in his psychic, the intentional knowledge of their
behavior and factual awareness of the result of their action.
Quote the Judge Don Francisco González Castillo, who in
page 163 the first edition of his book, "The fraud. His
Structure and Demonstrations ", claims from
logic of affection, for there fraud requires that one
to perform an action knows the real possibility of
production of the result is decided by the injury of right
legal, but who lacks that knowledge has not taken
a decision against damage to legal and if the
result occurs, could act negligently. The
Public Ministry considers that the case study does not
corresponds to the quote cited by the trial court,
and this is so, since the appointment develops his claim to
from the lack of knowledge by the Agent,
situation is not so in the present case in which
can assert that there was such knowledge. With support
on the evidence provided, valued in a positive direction and
considered valid, reliable and credible, it can be said with
Surely that Defendant tried to resist her
capture and indicated that rather die than surrender his
weapon. Are virtually the same words he had
delivered to your premium before taking his life. The
emotional state that the Court attributed to the defendant as
Transformer fault intent on not find support
and therefore probative, is not factual or legal. This is
say, there is a gap in the contested judgment between
the fact that judges and the law that applies; thus,
vice which leads to the receipt of the appeal is set. Are
configures the vice indicated that the Judge based his
judgment stating that the defendant was in a state
altered emotional coupled with his drunkenness, which produced that
lost his self-control, capacity of premeditation and
disappeared their awareness of the fraudulent nature of his conduct. The Court makes such an assessment without having had
with an expert opinion on the discipline of psychology
forensic, psychiatry or other auxiliary science,
limited to considering subjective assessments of witnesses
of prosecution and who are not experts in this area. By
Therefore, its factual and legal reasoning is inadequate, and
This gives rise to the appeal of the judgment. Test
evacuated da, whole, a different vision that
arises in this sense the Judge. The accused made use
its indiscriminate weapon, conscious of his power, and
considered a grievance which ask you for deliver. In
this sense, the prosecution is in favor of
a declaration to place its recursive claim and marries the
judgment to do justice to society, the victim and his
Family. Fourth plea advanced "Failure to comply
sound judgment in evaluating the evidence ". Precept
Authorizing: Article 362 (Numeral 3) of the Code
Penal. Reason Exhibition of Cassation: It is recorded in
The minutes of discussion as in the impugned judgment that the
Witnesses A. S. G. I. A. M. deposed before reaching
imputed to the house of the victim, that made at least one
shot in the air as he walked obviously in
drunkenness. Witnesses also said that before the
punishable act, the offended asked the weapon to
guardársela, to which he replied that he preferred the defendant
kill her instead of giving his gun. Also, witness
The. A. M. stated that the accused rode the gun before
shoot it. Putting Them, and declared answer,
credible, coherent and consistent by the Court, were
witnesses to the fact. In Addition, Witnesses
Emilio A. M. and S. The. The. stated in open court that
they gave capture the accused; I once located, the
accused fired his gun; Emilio A. responded to the fire; and
that, before surrendering, the defendant said he preferred
die than surrender his gun. A criterion of this
Attorney, the testimony referred to and the content of their
deposition have been assessed to culminate in conclusions that would not come from being properly observed
the rules of sound criticism. If the fault is analyzed
challenged by way of syllogism, judicial conclusion
seems to assert that those who are emotionally
altered lose control of themselves and awareness
between good and evil; then, the defendant committed the
crime while in a state of emotional disturbance and
also, drunk. Thus, who commit crimes while
emotionally alienated and drunk, are not
accountable by way of fraud, but
recklessness. This reasoning equates to recklessness
loss of awareness of the consequences of his action.
Such a statement is misleading and constitutes infringement of the
derivation rule, not because one thing leads to another,
and the conclusion reached is unrelated to the elements
intermediate shunt, or binds the initial premise
with the conclusion. Conversely, denotes a deficiency in
method from a fundamental premise and reach a
logical and valid statement. It is evident also an
Untying maximum experience. A man
poorly educated young, intoxicated, assembly and
proud of his weapon, is prone to use, as
throw the criminal statistics nationally,
although he should repent immediately. For this and all
the above, the prosecution considers the
susceptible appeal ruling, and in that sense it is pronounced
to enable the High Court ruling in support of the
recursive claim that this medium has been raised. "IV
appellant alleges breach of law by misapplication
Article 121 of the Criminal Code in relation to Article
13 third and fourth paragraphs of the Code. Flag
provision authorizing Article 360 of the Code
Penal. The Criminal Division has conducted an analysis of the factual picture of the judgment under appeal, unchanged in
cassation, confronting the substantive criminal law
applied by the Court a quo, in order to determine whether
criminal provisions have been unduly relied
applied, as stated by the censor, or whether
contrary, your application is correct, thus,
this room must explain its assessment and resolve
based on the following considerations: 1) Article 121 of
Penal Code regulates called manslaughter,
contemplating second paragraph circumstances that
aggravated manslaughter behavior when these
attend, is precisely the integrity of this article
which applied the Judge instance. To be applied
this provision in its entirety, must attend the
circumstances be a culpable conduct and having
committed as a result of being the author state
drunk or have used drugs prohibited by the
law, hence, before I comment on the assumptions of
second paragraph thereof, must determine
absolutely clear that we must understand by "wrongful" or that
is, for it is correct regarding Article 13
fourth paragraph of the Penal Code which helps us to clarify the
concept to establish that the offense is guilty when
result of recklessness, incompetence or negligence, or when
is a product of the failure of a law, a regulation,
orders, resolutions or duties, in the circumstances
and the personal circumstances of the offender. The culpable offense
shall be liable only in cases determined by law…”
As shown, the definition of crime appears
Wrongful not so much linked to the will of the agent but more
While the reckless act, malpractice or negligence, o well
product breach of a law, regulations or
orders, resolutions or duties, that is closely linked to the
breaches of duty of care and predictability, in
this sense is useful mean Cobo del Rosal and Vives
Anton that "concurs imprudent who performs an act
typically unlawful, unintentionally , but because you have breached the duty of care that personally
was enforceable "1. 2) It is important to determine whether the conduct
described in the proven fact describes an intentional act,
ie if it involves the realization of the same knowledge
and will of the author or if instead it follows that no
I wanted to verify conduct, but his recklessness led to
commit infringement of due care, in this sense
the proven fact first, in the opinion of the room described
clearly reflecting a push away all doubt the
beyond the author, the occurrence of fraud is appreciated, the
discarding absolutely culpable crime. 3) The
misapplication implies the existence of an error
precept selection, it definitely is, those
cases in which the criminal law does not provide for or
facts found in the judgment, as
happens in the case under consideration, "It is a mistake of subsumption
of facts in a legal provision that does not contain,
It is a mistake in incurred to establish the relationship of
similarity or difference between the particular case and the fact
hypothetically traced by the standard. Describes ultimately, that
this error adequacy standard applied, having
existence and legal validity does not regulate, not collect the facts
courts, because these do not match or correspond with
it. It is a fault diagnosis, impertinence of law
to compare it with the case ",2is therefore
improperly applied Article 121 relative to 13
fourth paragraph two of the Penal Code, thus
comes the reason of Cassation invoked. V OF ORIGIN
alleged violation of law for lack of application of Article
116 Penal Code. Flag provision authorizing the
article 360 the Criminal Procedure Code. This Chamber
1 See M. Cobo del Rosal and T.S. Vives Anton. Criminal. General Party. 5ta Edition. Tiran what blanch.
Valencia 1999. P. 634
2 Germán Gómez Pabon. Of Cassation and Criminal Revision. Colombia 2003. Editions Doctrine and Law. P.
225.Criminal proceeds to explain and solve their appreciation based
the following considerations: 1) Article 116 of
Penal Code, states that "whoever death to a person
not attend the circumstances mentioned in the
following Articles of this Chapter, commits the offense
manslaughter, and shall incur the penalty of fifteen (15) a
twenty (20) years imprisonment ". For the concurrence of this
penal provision is necessary not give the
subsequent homicide rates regulated by the code
criminal and must parangonar the fact tested again
first of the judgment, with this provision, a
order to check whether they correspond or if
Conversely mismatched; before this year, this Living
Criminal, is of the opinion that the act described in the fact
proven, denotes a willful misconduct on the part of the accused,
which excludes the culpable offense and may not be framed in other
offenses other than manslaughter, because the story
fàctico (trigger and shoot her cousin) involves not only
knowledge of the fact that committed but the will of
make such conduct, that while contemplating fraud
as common to other types of homicide, no se and
the special circumstances of those,
consequently allowing qualify as murder
simple. 2) Article 13 second paragraph in your home,
states that "The offense is intentional when the result
I answered that it had intended to run ... "Analyzed
This precept and confronted with the fact declared tested
first paragraph, shows that the encartado had the
intend to shoot producing the result that
effectively managed by their actions; we are
against a direct intent to properly link to the
regulation of manslaughter, being suitable criminalize
crime as fraudulent and consequently as manslaughter and
not as a culpable offense (manslaughter) given
marked differences between the two categories, because "while
the criminal offense involves the performance of the unjust type
respective knowingly and willingly, in the subject offense reckless not to commit the act referred to in
type, but it makes for a breach of rule
care ".3 The Court of Cassation considers that the conduct
the accused was made through fraud as shown in the
proven fact that the act was committed with knowledge and
one element mediating voluntative imposed acceptance of
harmful outcome sought by agent, resulting that
actually we have a case of lack of
application of substantive law as the judge "has left
applying the standard that rigors of contents
descriptive and evaluative structural and fits right
aplicativamente to the materials contained in behavior or
behaviors regarding prosecution "4. For these reasons it is
from the plea invoked. VI RESOURCE
declines to rule on this plea in
have prospered under two grounds of appeal in the
background. VII of appeal FOR BREACH OF
BY PUBLIC MINISTRY. The Criminal Division refrains
to rule on this ground of appeal under
have prospered two grounds of appeal in the background. BY
So much: The Supreme Court, on behalf of the
CRIMINAL and application of Articles 303, 304, 313
attribution 5, 316 second paragraph reformed Constitution
Republic; 1 and 80 number 1 of the Law on Organization and
Powers of the Courts; 13, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 62, 68,
69, 116, 121 Penal Code; 359, 360 first paragraph, 362
number 3, and 369 the Criminal Procedure Code.- FAILURE: 1) It has PLACE the
appeal by Law Violation, in its first plea,
3 See Mir Puig Santiago. Criminal. General Party. Eighth Edition. Editorial B de F. MontevideoBuenos Aires. 2009. P 284
4 See Pabon Germán Gómez. Of Cassation and Criminal Revision. Colombia 2003. Doctrine and Editions
Law. P. 220.


The undersigned Secretary General of the Supreme Court of
Justice CERTIFY the judgment which reads: "IN
Tegucigalpa, Municipality of the Central District, August 11 of
two thousand nine, through the SALA CRIMINAL, comprising
Judges JAMES Calix HERNANDEZ, Coordinator Criminal Court,
Sentencing hearing the appeal in cassation by
Breach of Form, brought against the judgment of
dated December 5, two thousand seven, dictated by the
Sentencing Court of Trujillo, Department of Colon,
by which acquitted the accused E. A. P. P., for the crime
of WRONGFUL DEATH, detriment of D. C. R. S., and a crime
by negligence, detriment of M. J. S. S..- They are PARTIES:
The Advocate F. The. M. O., in his capacity as Attorney
Prosecutors as recurrent, and as counsel appealed
C. M. G. M., in his capacity as defense attorney Mr. E.
A. P. P ..- PROVEN FACTS: First: On Friday first
September 2006, and at about twenty hours (eight
night) D. C. R. S. and M. J. S. S., came to the village of
Yellow water in a bus that covers the route from La Ceiba to
Trujillo, but the unit did not stop just at the
diversion but later stopped before pulling down
alluded that they were hit by a delivery truck
of building materials was driven by E.
A. P.
P., which did not stop and continued until Tocoa.
Second: Relatives and neighbors help forthcoming to run over and
they were transferred to the Hospital Salvador Paredes City
Trujillo, where D. He died of trauma
encefalocraneano; while M., turned to the diagnostic
following: 1) open cranial trauma, 2) Wound 2
from left scalp region tempooccipital, 3)
Linear fracture of the occipital bone izquierdo.-Third: And. A.
P. P., voluntarily submitted the following day to the
Delegation of the Directorate General for Research Tocoa,
where he was arrested and brought to justice.-
CONSIDERANDO.-That the remedy of appeal for Destruction
timely filed Form, eligible
required by law, therefore be admissible,
being from ruling on the admissibility or
inappropriateness of it. II.- That the appellant, proceeded to
formalize its action follows: EXHIBITION
Sole: "Not having observed the trial, in
evaluation of evidence, the rules of sound criticism ".
Precept authorizing: This ground of appeal
is covered by Article 362 numeral 3, Code
Criminal Procedure. EXPLANATION OF REASON: It will be useful for
greater understanding of the present action to establish what
be understood in terms of assessing the evidence in
criminal proceedings.- According to Article 202 Code
Criminal Procedure the sentencing form his conviction
jointly assessing and harmonious whole test
produced and under sound judgment, obligatoriness
also revalidated in paragraph 2 Fourth rule
Article 338 the same legislation. This system
assessment, implementing criminal justice reform, the
allows the sentencing some freedom in their estimation
testing to determine its
conviction, but always respecting the rules of the
logic, psychology and common experience.- Within
logic rules, to be followed by the judge in the
evaluation of evidence, as required by Articles 202 and
336 Criminal Procedure Code and stressing Article 338,
Section four, numeral 2 (“…justifying under the rules of 3
sound judgment, the value that has been given to those practiced in
trial…”), feature appears, required by them,
called, FERNANDO DE LA RUA as (The Criminal Cassation. The
criminal appeals in the new Criminal Procedure Code
the nation), as DERIVATIVE, whereby, motivation should
respect the principle of sufficient reason, for which "the
reasoning should consist of reasonable inferences
deduced from the evidence and conclusions succession
under determining them go. "- For this, the
motivation must be "concordant": each conclusión the stated
denied, should properly match an element of
conviction which to infer that, must also
be "TRUE", this is based on evidence that
effectively form the scaffolding of the trial evidence and
which sustains the extracted content of the inference by
sentencing, and equally and therefore also requires
the intellectually value judgment of probanza
made by the Judge is "ENOUGH", This is,
consisting of components designed to produce a reasoning
certain or probable fact.- Result, that the sentence
Today is questioned by this challenging this track, contains a defect
grave that goes against the rules of sound criticism
observed in the evaluation of evidence, and that
becomes, thus, in violation of the
Items mentioned.- In this process the
order to establish the facts, were developed, as
testimony, statements by witnesses:
D. And. R. S., D. M. R. and M. J. S..- The witness D. And. R. S.,
stated the following: "That the 01 September to that of the
eight p.m., he was out of his house when he heard
hitting a car so he asked his grandmother if
I had heard the blow and it said yes, then went
shopping "Hardware J." which was observed that no
led lights, when she arrived on the scene he found 4
his sister dying and arriving at triangle latter
began to convulse and died on arrival at hospital. When
It was in the wake of her sister called J., owner
car and told him he was thirty thousand lempiras expenses
funeral. A public prosecutor questions the witness
He said seconds passed since he heard the beat,
when he looked to pass the truck, and that the car was made Tocoa,
describing the truck as closed, with a warning.- The witness
D. M. R., He referred in his statement the following: On Friday 01
in September 2006, among the eight past seven p.m.,
she was waiting for her sister C. and her cousin, the bus is not
lowered them where needed to lose, when he came walking,
passed the wagon J Hardware. and was heard as when
burning a tire on the street, the vehicle has not reached where
was D. but where his sister, said motor
not wearing light. A public prosecutor questions the witness
said that she did not look when they ran over her sister,
but if I saw the car which was a white truck, had
the name of the hardware with lyrics red, that
the car was going to Tocoa, when the accident happens
car was slowly, but when people began to
started screaming fast.- The testimony of witness M.
J. S., in his capacity offended, was incorporated into the
Reading debate by authorized based on Article
311 numeral 2 of
Criminal Procedure Code, shedding it's
following: The first day of September, two
thousand and six, at about half past seven p.m. came from Ceiba
and the bus down (referring to it, on a first D. and to
two children of the latter) on the hill of the thirteen, and had to
get off at the turn of the place called "The Jar", she
came with the children of his cousin D. come in, coming from the
curbside and she told D. to cross the street,
they did not see that coming trolley why they did, after 5
that does not remember anything until I was in the hospital.- A
through the act of lifting is fully established that the
Mrs. D. C. R. had traumatic brain injury
closed; Coroner opinion practiced Mrs. M.
S., determined to have traumatic brain injury
open, scalp wound and linear bone fracture
left occipital, about a month undergoing
after a post surgical drainage of hematoma- Traumatic of
buttock and right thigh; evidence as they leave
evidenced that actually had offended
injuries on their bodies by the impact received the vehicle.-
The Judge to issue the respective judgment on that
aspect in recital tenth the following: "The
Court can not establish with certainty from the
above statements that the truck
come without lights, far this has been the
cause of runover. We must say at this point that
the witnesses have given their testimony condition
direct or indirect victims depriving their
evidence of impartiality necessary to be
taken into account. This does not mean that all
cases where the witness has said condition their statements
must be dismissed as reliable evidence
credibility, but necessarily mean that the data
provided by them need to be confirmed by testing
but objective, which in this case must be evidence
scientific, and the expertise of the automobile and the study of
Event scenario in which normally remain indications
the offense.- It is understandable that the testimony of the
victims may originate in spite, Revenge, the
hostility or other similar factor and it is impossible to
melts appealing a conviction only these
evidence ".- By analyzing the statements of the witnesses who
appeared to the debate we can see that they are 6
answer to say that the day of the events was observed in
that place a vehicle identified with the name of
J Hardware. in red letters which was seen moments
after I heard a knock, the foregoing
Witness D. M., relates that after it said vehicle
He continued his way slowly then, with the murmur of
People, he went in quick race; is also unable to demonstrate
through the declaration of D. E., effectively the
J Hardware vehicle. was involved in the incident to
say that when he was at the funeral of his sister
called J. the car owner and told him he was thirty thousand
lempiras for funeral expenses, coupled with the above the report
Directorate General of Criminal Investigation established in
now the same as the charged E. A. P., appeared before this
authority voluntarily answer by facts,
event indicating that he was indeed the
person first night of September 2006,
driving the vehicle with the slogan Hardware J ..- So
True prosecution witnesses proposed by the
Prosecutors did not observe the precise moment
the vehicle came upon ladies D. C. S. and M. S., the
elements that bring in their statements are consistent
each of which occurred clarify the facts and placed without
doubt the vehicle Hardware J., knowing the
identity of the person who was driving to have been submitted
authority voluntarily before the alleged offender,
credited by such statements in the
dynamics of occurrence of the events the accused was
driving the vehicle with the lights off.- Considering
we disagree with the above referred to by the Judge,
whereas in this case through the
statements of witnesses not evidence any
element detach them feelings of resentment,
revenge or enmity, but focus on manifesting what 7
perceived by the senses, fail to identify even the
person driving the vehicle, getting itself to know that
whereabouts until such time that the defendant is presented
voluntarily to answer the facts occurred. Of
equally to dispose of these statements that the
vehicle driving without lights, fact
which the Judge concerned that such data should be confirmed
by more objective tests, as automotive expertise and
the study of the stage of the event, this factor is not shown
whereas not being critical or poor condition
nothing justifies recklessly driving a car without
appropriate conditions, in at night and place
populated, besides not having rescued people for him
lesioned.- In analyzing this evidence as a whole we can not
Unless addressed to the conclusion that the accused E. A. P.,
with their reckless action caused the death of the
Ladies D. C. S., also produced lesions Mrs. M.
S..- We should note that assessment we consider
as postulated infringement integrated shunt
by the principle of sufficient reason which,as we should
for reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence and
succession of tests under them go
determining, principle is violated at
establish the Judge conclusion derived from the
evidence provided that it has not been possible to establish that the
vehicle that struck offended came with lights
deleted, let alone that this was the cause of
runover, on that particular reasoning
Judge on that aspect becomes erroneous because the
Witnesses tell perceived by the senses in a way
clear and consistent about the fact that tell of which
no other conclusion than that the vehicle with the
Hardware name J., He steamrolled offended when 8
that these were preparing to cross the street, vehicle not
They could warn to bring the lights out; similarly
Judicial motivation must be consistent is that
each conclusion affirmed or denied must correspond
Conveniently an element of conviction which can
infer that, this element is observed also violated
when the Judge, even when warned that witnesses
office in their capacity as direct or indirect victims
gave their testimony concludes, that they are not coated
impartiality necessary to be considered,
observed that the reasoning of Judicial this
aspect is not derived from any piece of evidence; also the
motivation should be derived from true and sufficient elements,
found it violated, whereas in the present
If the trial does not draw its assessment of
probative evidence or source of belief such as
The witness statements, and the report of the
General Directorate of Criminal Investigation, the minutes of
removal of the body and the respective
Opinion practiced autopsy on the body of D. R. and
forensic medical examinations performed
the offended M. S., they do indicate that the accused made
reckless action alleged against him, and not having
done so motivational vitiates the trial judgment that
now challenged.- As a result of analysis of the test
witness, this follows that generates no doubt about the
essence of the facts, therefore can not claim that they have
lied or distorted the facts; which to be assessed
together with the forensic reports, the report of the
DGIC and the act of removing the body generate us
unique and logical information: the accused killed the
offended D. C. S. Injuries and M. S., when these are
preparing to cross the street to get to his home in
room, that can be seen as, They did not make the 9
negligence of the defendant E. A. P., who was driving in
type car truck, white with the name of Hardware
J. in red letters, with the lights off, which prevented
offended appreciated its presence when
want to cross the street, also present which could not
realizing the accused, for otherwise it would have made
a move that warned of the danger that generated the
imputed to driving without vehicle lights. Tests
indicated deserve full credit and to allow an
assessment under the rules of sound criticism can not be
dismissed by the trial, while considering that
tests provide us with information that confirms what
manifested by the other; however, not being
valued in adherence to the rules of sound criticism, not
much less have been interrelated, as
require Articles 202, 336 the Criminal Procedure Code,
the Judge stopped taking the positive factual conclusion that
the accused, And. A. P. He is responsible for the crime of Murder
Death in detriment of Mrs. D. C.
S. and negligent injury to the detriment of Mrs. M. S..- Without
embargo; is important to emphasize that in this
If there is a dissenting opinion of whose motivation
specifically set out in paragraph fourth paragraph
fifth set forth the following: "It has become clear that their
intention (referring to the accused) was driving the vehicle
type truck white with the name J Hardware. in
red letters, on at night in the open road
Trujillo, Columbus leads to the city of Tocoa; however,
under the belief that there was no pedestrian traffic, by
reason for the lack of lights in the vehicle not you
allowed to see ladies D. C. R. and M. S. at the time
crossing the road, so much so that even powered
whistle or horn vehicle driven, produced by
Thus the dynamics of abuse death 10
closed traumatic brain injury D. R. and Injuries
M. S.…, is then the lack of due care that lead
truck type vehicle white with the name of
J Hardware. in red letters, without taking proper measures
security, which produces the result death of Mrs. D.
C. R. Injuries and Mrs. M. S., when a few
meters of where you are in the company of younger children
D. had been off the bus with origin of the Ceiba,
Atlantis crossed the road without noticing the presence
the motor vehicle was driven by E. A. P.”. By
have occurred in procedendo vice denounced
This plea, in the act of sentencing same, has not
I could made a claim for relief
vice. "- ON THE ORIGIN OF plea at
of the Criminal Division, clarify that to hear appeals
of Cassation on
the plea raised by the appellant, of "not occurred
the rules of sound criticism ", only is this allowed the
Room, establish whether the proofs are valid (legitimate) what if
the conclusions reached match rules
logicality and if there is sufficient motivation and legal, since this
High Court is limited to value alternately
evidence heard at first instance, limitations which are
imposed by the principles of orality and Immediacy, saying
otherwise, the appellate review deals with determining whether
no validity in tests, if the conclusions obtained
respond to the rules of right human understanding, and if
Motivation is expressed, clear, complete and issued pursuant to
the legal rules applicable to the case.- Having said
above in the case, the Court A-Quo, expressed that
The witness statements of D. And. R. Scout, D. M. R. and
M. J. S., "Can not establish with certainty that the 11
truck came without lights, far this has been the
cause of runover .........…but necessarily understand
that the information provided by them need to be confirmed
by more objective tests, that in the case
they should be evidence, and the expertise of
car and study the stage of the event ... .. " ; leads
reason the Sentencing Tribunal in relation to
besides the version given by two (2) Witness
with respect to, the vehicle driven by the
accused had no lights, not evacuated in the debate other
objectively reliable test that could commit
or concatenate this statement, hinting the A-Quo,
regarding the failure to provide expert evidence or
documentaries that had served to support the version
witness, and that, strictly speaking they are inherent in
the type of facts that were aired in court. – II.- This Chamber
Penal, considers that the conclusion reached by the A- Where,
also be based on legally admissible evidence and evacuated,
responds to the rules of logic, since, although admittedly in
failure that eyewitness evidence shed
important that the vehicle mentioned came without lights. The
reasoning of the judges is consistent in concluding
These statements are not sufficient proof
establish with certainty that the automobile had no lights
lit, and even more, to arrive at the conviction that
serious cause or condition beyond doubt, that caused the
trampling of young, which is the result imputed to
Mr. E. A. P. P..- Also the A-Quo subtraction objectivity and
necessary impartiality told by the witnesses for their
provided direct or indirect victims, which in
understanding may cause your stools are motivated
by feelings of resentment or revenge feud; happiness
appreciation of the A-Quo, for this room also becomes a
correct and consistent reasoning with the right understanding 12
human, not only because in some cases it is reasonable to assume that
It may happen that witnesses who have been affected so
directly or indirectly, lack of objective impartiality
necessary to become sufficiently credible, but
also because in the case of merit, these depositions
They were orphaned evidentiary support, not possible
be ratified the confirmed, by other evidence objectively
reliable, that could result in a conclusion of certainty, about
the cause of runover, which is necessary for podérselo
causally attributed to the defendant, since it is understood that, in
This type of event is essential to
make a link attributing it to the fact
lack of duty of care when driving there is a
precisely clear causal link between the way people drive
and damage caused, namely, the result of the object
imputation . The appellant also errs its approach
As to pretend that this Supreme Court values
alternately evacuated test in the first instance,
having already been judged it by the trial court
under the own principles of criminal procedure of immediacy,
contradiction and orality, so do not think this room
the A-Quo, when evaluating the evidence disrespected the
principle of sufficient reason, and that inferences deduced
for the same if they are reasonable, getting itself to conclusions
logical and consistent, besides true, extracted
as a consequence of evidence lawfully evacuated in the
debate, and as a product of motivation is clear
complete and expresses, which allows a reasoning
right on the evidence that led to
process, not be concluded that the "factum" of the judgment
is dissonant with the reasoning in the assessment
Test; Nor is it possible to extract with conviction or
forcefulness, the only testimony of witnesses testifies
enough, to conclude that the vehicle driven by the 13
accused had no lights regulation, not being
established that runover has been due
result for "lack of objective duty of care"
required the accused when driving, in consequence of
the above, no grief is evident in the implementation of the
rules of sound criticism, or that there has been a vice "in
proceeding "; why derives declare inadmissible the
only motive of Cassation filed by the Public Ministry.
THEREFORE: The Supreme Court, on behalf of the
CRIMINAL, and application of Articles 303, 304, 313
attribution 5, and 316 reformed the Constitution of the
Republic; 1 and 80 number 1 of the Law on Organization and
Powers of the Courts; 359, 362 numeral 3, and 369 of
Criminal Procedure Code; 8 of the American Convention on
Human Rights.- FAILURE: 1).- DECLARES NO PLACE, Resource
of APPEAL FOR BREACH OF FORM, in his only motive,
invoked by F. The. M. O., in his capacity as Attorney
Public Ministry.- AND SEND: I once notified
this judgment, the parties, is applicable to the return of
background to the trial court of Trujillo, Department
de Colon, for legal purposes correspondientes.REDACTÓ THE
Extended at the request of the Attorney T. F. R. in his capacity as
Public Prosecutor, in Tegucigalpa,
M.D.C., to the twenty-three days of October two thousand
nine, certification decision dated August 11 of
two thousand and nine, relapse Appeal Criminal Appeal with
recovery order in this Court No.130-08.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.