{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-135973", "citation": "Res. 00008-2011 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Omisión de audiencia oral al mantener prisión preventiva", "title_en": "Failure to hold oral hearing when maintaining pretrial detention", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional conoce un recurso de hábeas corpus presentado contra una decisión del Juzgado Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José que, en revisión trimestral de oficio, mantuvo la prisión preventiva del tutelado sin celebrar una audiencia oral previa. La Sala recuerda que el hábeas corpus protege el derecho a la libertad y la integridad personal, pero no convierte a la jurisdicción constitucional en una instancia adicional del proceso penal. Sin embargo, enfatiza que cuando está en juego la libertad personal —particularmente en la imposición o mantenimiento de la prisión preventiva— la oralidad es una garantía ineludible del debido proceso y del derecho de defensa. En el caso concreto, el juzgado admitió no haber realizado audiencia antes de prorrogar la medida cautelar. La Sala concluye que esa omisión vulneró el derecho de defensa del amparado, pues la oralidad es indispensable para que el imputado pueda ejercer una defensa material y controvertir los argumentos de la parte acusadora. Declara con lugar el recurso, aunque sin ordenar la libertad del tutelado, limitándose a anular la omisión reprochada.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber hears a habeas corpus petition filed against a decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, which, during an ex officio quarterly review, maintained the petitioner's pretrial detention without holding a prior oral hearing. The Chamber recalls that habeas corpus protects the right to liberty and personal integrity, but does not turn the constitutional jurisdiction into an additional instance in the criminal process. However, it emphasizes that when personal liberty is at stake—particularly for imposing or maintaining pretrial detention—orality is an unavoidable guarantee of due process and the right to a defense. In this case, the court admitted it had not held a hearing before extending the precautionary measure. The Chamber finds that this omission violated the petitioner's right to a defense, as orality is essential for the accused to mount a material defense and challenge the prosecution's arguments. It grants the petition without ordering the petitioner's release, limited to annulling the challenged omission.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "2011", "year": "2011", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "prisión preventiva", "medidas cautelares", "oralidad", "juez de garantías", "revisión trimestral de oficio", "debido proceso", "derecho de defensa", "imputado" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 253", "law": "Código Procesal Penal" }, { "article": "Art. 13", "law": "Código Procesal Penal" }, { "article": "Art. 39", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 15", "law": "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional" } ], "keywords_es": [ "hábeas corpus", "prisión preventiva", "oralidad", "medidas cautelares", "derecho de defensa", "debido proceso", "revisión trimestral de oficio", "Sala Constitucional", "Juzgado Penal de San José", "Cruz Castro" ], "keywords_en": [ "habeas corpus", "pretrial detention", "orality", "precautionary measures", "right to defense", "due process", "ex officio quarterly review", "Constitutional Chamber", "Criminal Court of San José", "Cruz Castro" ], "excerpt_es": "Del cuadro fáctico anterior, con base en la jurisprudencia citada en los considerandos anteriores de esta sentencia, estima este Tribunal que la falta de celebración de la audiencia, previo a la decisión que mantiene la medida cautelar y que cuestiona el recurrente, incide desfavorablemente en el ejercicio de la defensa del amparado porque no se observó en esta etapa procesal la oralidad, pese a tratarse de la aplicación de la prisión preventiva, medida cautelar que por tener impacto directo en la libertad del tutelado, la oralidad reclamada resulta ineludible e infranqueable. Consecuente con lo expuesto procede declarar con lugar el recurso sin ordenar la libertad del amparado.", "excerpt_en": "Based on the foregoing facts and the case law cited in the preceding recitals of this judgment, this Court finds that the failure to hold a hearing before the decision maintaining the precautionary measure—challenged by the petitioner—adversely affects the exercise of the petitioner's defense, because orality was not observed at this procedural stage, despite involving the imposition of pretrial detention, a precautionary measure that directly impacts the petitioner's liberty, making the claimed orality inescapable and insurmountable. Consequently, the petition is granted without ordering the petitioner's release.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The petition is granted because the lack of an oral hearing when maintaining pretrial detention violated the right to a defense.", "summary_es": "Se declara con lugar el recurso porque la falta de audiencia oral al mantener la prisión preventiva violó el derecho de defensa." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "This Chamber is not an additional instance in the criminal process, and it is not its place to substitute criminal judges in the exercise of their functions, lest it unduly intrude on the jurisdiction of the criminal courts, in open contradiction with Article 153 of the Political Constitution.", "quote_es": "[E]sta Sala no es una instancia más en el proceso penal, ni le corresponde sustituir a los jueces penales en ejercicio de sus funciones, so pena de incidir indebidamente en el ámbito de competencia de la jurisdiccional penal, en abierta contradicción con el artículo 153 de la Constitución Política." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "Orality in the hearing for imposing these precautionary measures is meant to allow the parties to present their petitions and arguments verbally, in the presence of the judge and in an adversarial manner, which means, in parallel—by imperative of concentration—that judges must decide orally and immediately the petitions submitted to them.", "quote_es": "La oralidad en la audiencia de imposición de estas medidas cautelares pretende que las partes presenten sus peticiones y argumentos en forma verbal, en presencia del juez y de manera contradictoria, lo que significa, en forma paralela –por imperativo de la concentración- que los jueces deben resolver en forma oral e inmediata las peticiones sometidas a su consideración." }, { "context": "Considerando VIII", "quote_en": "The failure to hold a hearing before the decision maintaining the precautionary measure challenged by the petitioner adversely affects the exercise of the petitioner's defense, because orality was not observed at this procedural stage, despite involving the imposition of pretrial detention.", "quote_es": "la falta de celebración de la audiencia, previo a la decisión que mantiene la medida cautelar y que cuestiona el recurrente, incide desfavorablemente en el ejercicio de la defensa del amparado porque no se observó en esta etapa procesal la oralidad, pese a tratarse de la aplicación de la prisión preventiva." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0007-135973", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-38533", "norm_num": "7135", "norm_name": "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "11/10/1989" }, { "doc_id": "norm-41297", "norm_num": "7594", "norm_name": "Código Procesal Penal — Acción penal en delitos ambientales", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "10/04/1996" }, { "doc_id": "norm-871", "norm_num": "0", "norm_name": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política", "norm_fecha": "07/11/1949" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“ III.- El\r\nhábeas corpus y la competencia de la jurisdicción constitucional. De\r\nconformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 15 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción\r\nConstitucional, el hábeas corpus es un recurso especial y preferente por medio\r\ndel cual se solicita el restablecimiento del derecho constitucional a la\r\nlibertad, la suspensión de todo orden que la amenace y la protección de la\r\nintegridad personal, sin que por ello esta jurisdicción se convierta en una\r\ninstancia más en el proceso penal. Por consiguiente, el hábeas corpus se\r\ntramita mediante un procedimiento sumario, sencillo e informal, por el cual se\r\nprotege el derecho a la libertad de tránsito y la integridad física de los\r\nciudadanos de cara a la autoridad pública, puesto que la Sala sólo puede conocer\r\naquellas actuaciones de los tribunales comunes que guardan una estricta\r\nrelación e incidencia sobre la libertad personal, sea su restricción efectiva o\r\nla amenaza directa a su restricción –ver en este sentido sentencia número\r\n2001-766, de catorce horas cincuenta y siete minutos del 30 de enero de 2001-.\r\nDe tal forma, a la Sala no le corresponde fiscalizar la apreciación del acervo\r\nprobatorio realizado por las autoridades jurisdiccionales penales –sentencia\r\nnúmero 2001-3258, de las ocho horas cincuenta y seis minutos del 27 de abril de\r\n2001-, ni tampoco constatar que se ha dado una correcta aplicación de la ley\r\npenal. Por consiguiente, no le compete a la Sala Constitucional verificar,\r\nentre otros aspectos, si las evidencias materiales, los testimonios y declaraciones\r\nde testigos, ofendidos o imputados, y todo otro elemento de prueba que hubiera\r\npodido existir en autos, demuestran la culpabilidad o inocencia de la persona\r\nencartada, como tampoco deben ser valorados por esta jurisdicción aspectos\r\neminentemente materiales acontecidos o producidos en la tramitación del\r\nsumario. En efecto, la jurisprudencia de la Sala ha sido constante en definir\r\nlos alcances de esta jurisdicción, señalando en este sentido mediante sentencia\r\nnúmero 2002-8811 de las dieciséis horas con veinte minutos del 10 de septiembre\r\nde 2002 –reiterada, entre otras, por sentencia número 2007-18662, de las once\r\nhoras diecinueve minutos del 21 de diciembre de 2007-, que:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"[E]sta\r\nSala no es una instancia más en el proceso penal, ni le corresponde sustituir a\r\nlos jueces penales en ejercicio de sus funciones, so pena de incidir\r\nindebidamente en el ámbito de competencia de la jurisdiccional penal, en\r\nabierta contradicción con el artículo 153 de la Constitución Política. Por\r\nello, es en el propio proceso penal que debe precisarse la procedencia de la\r\nprisión preventiva en el caso concreto de cada imputado, de conformidad a los\r\ndistintos elementos de convicción existentes, a la concurrencia de las\r\ncircunstancias que lo justifiquen y a su relación particular con el proceso.\r\nTampoco corresponde revisar en esta sede la correcta valoración del material\r\nprobatorio existente en el proceso penal, pues determinar el grado de\r\ncontundencia o el valor probatorio que se debe atribuir a cada elemento de\r\nconvicción, en relación con la participación de cada imputado, es propio de\r\nresolverse en la sede penal. En razón de ello, si el recurrente está\r\ndisconforme con la apreciación probatoria realizada por el juez competente,\r\nello hace referencia a un reparo propio de plantearse en el proceso penal,\r\nmediante los recursos y ante las instancias expresamente previstas al\r\nefecto…\". \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- El derecho a la defensa. Es reiterada la\r\njurisprudencia de la Sala reconociendo el derecho a la defensa, tanto en el\r\námbito penal como en toda materia sancionadora o que pueda dar como resultado\r\nla supresión o restricción de derechos subjetivos de las personas. El derecho a\r\nla defensa está consagrado en el artículo 8 de la Convención Americana sobre\r\nDerechos Humanos, disposición que contiene previsiones expresas para los\r\nprocesos penales, así como en el artículo 39 de la Constitución Política, y los\r\nnumerales 12 y 13 del Código Procesal Penal. En efecto, el artículo 13 de este\r\núltimo cuerpo legal señala: \n\r\n\r\n\n\"Desde el primer momento de la\r\npersecución penal y hasta el fin de la ejecución de la sentencia, el imputado\r\ntendrá derecho a la asistencia y defensa técnica letrada. Para tales efectos,\r\npodrá elegir a un defensor de su confianza, pero, de no hacerlo, se le asignará\r\nun defensor público. \n\r\n\r\n\nEl derecho de defensa es\r\nirrenunciable.” \n\r\n\r\n\nEl derecho a la defensa, como\r\nderecho fundamental en sí mismo, y como derecho consustancial para la efectiva\r\nprotección de los derechos fundamentales, es plenamente tutelable\r\npor la jurisdicción constitucional. Así lo reconoce el artículo 16 de la Ley de\r\nla Jurisdicción Constitucional, al otorgar a la Sala la facultad para analizar\r\nen la vía de la acción de hábeas corpus, otras violaciones diversas a la\r\nlibertad o integridad personales, pero que incidan directamente sobre la vigencia\r\nde esta libertad fundamental, situación que debe analizarse si se presenta en\r\nel caso bajo estudio. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.- Sobre la\r\noralidad en el proceso penal. La Sala Constitucional ha tenido la\r\noportunidad de analizar la importancia y necesidad de la oralidad en materia\r\npenal. La citada disposición del párrafo primero del artículo 8 de la\r\nConvención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, indica que como parte de las\r\ngarantías judiciales, toda persona tiene derecho «a ser oída, con las debidas\r\ngarantías y dentro de un plazo razonable, por un juez o tribunal competente,\r\nindependiente e imparcial, establecido con anterioridad por la ley, en la\r\nsustanciación de cualquier acusación penal formulada contra ella, o para la\r\ndeterminación de sus derechos y obligaciones de orden civil, laboral, fiscal o\r\nde cualquier otro carácter». Por su parte, el artículo 14 del Pacto\r\nInternacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos señala que «Todas las\r\npersonas son iguales ante los tribunales y cortes de justicia. Toda persona\r\ntendrá derecho a ser oída públicamente y con las debidas garantías por un\r\ntribunal competente, independiente e imparcial, establecido por la ley, en la\r\nsubstanciación de cualquier acusación de carácter penal formulada contra ella o\r\npara la determinación de sus derechos u obligaciones de carácter civil»,\r\nmientras que la Constitución Política define el derecho a una justicia pronta y\r\ncumplida, o bien, el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva, lo que le significa\r\nuna garantía para las personas de acceso fácil e irrestricto a los órganos\r\njudiciales, lo cual debe ser entendido tanto como la posibilidad de acceder al\r\nsistema de justicia como una garantía que trasunta todo el procedimiento\r\njudicial. De la lectura integral de las normas parcialmente transcritas, se\r\ndesprende que la utilización de la oralidad durante la fase preparatoria\r\nconstituye un instrumento básico para el ejercicio de una defensa eficiente de\r\nlos intereses del acusado, congruente con los principios esenciales que rigen\r\nel proceso penal -tales como el acusatorio, la contradicción, la inmediación de\r\nla prueba y, en definitiva, la potenciación del derecho de defensa, la\r\neficiencia y la celeridad del proceso-. Hay certeza que las audiencia orales\r\nson plena garantía para que todas las partes expongan con garantía del contradictorio\r\ny de viva voz sus razones para defender las diferentes pretensiones\r\ninterlocutorias que podrían afectar los derechos de los sujetos procesales, de\r\nmanera particular cuando se encuentre de por medio la libertad personal. La\r\nobservancia del debido proceso, el derecho de defensa y la oralidad en las\r\naudiencias, procura que se discuta de manera concreta las razones específicas\r\nque fundamentan la petición del Ministerio Público y se escuche la posición de\r\nla defensa de previo a la imposición de una medida cautelar que restrinja la\r\nlibertad personal. Asimismo, se potencia la figura del juez de garantías para\r\nque éste custodie el cumplimiento efectivo de las causales que justifican la\r\nimposición de la medida cautelar y que esta, a su vez, cumpla sus fines, de\r\nmanera que sea instrumental, temporal, sometida a controles jurisdiccionales\r\ndependiendo de la necesidad de su mantenimiento o prórroga y tenga fines de\r\ncautela para que no se convierta en un adelanto de la pena. La oralidad en la\r\naudiencia de imposición de estas medidas cautelares pretende que las partes\r\npresenten sus peticiones y argumentos en forma verbal, en presencia del juez y\r\nde manera contradictoria, lo que significa, en forma paralela –por imperativo\r\nde la concentración- que los jueces deben resolver en forma oral e inmediata\r\nlas peticiones sometidas a su consideración, sobre la base de la información\r\ndiscutida en la audiencia, en aras de garantizar el derecho a una resolución\r\npronta y cumplida que analice la privación de libertad y la necesidad de\r\nmantener medidas cautelares. Por lo anterior, la fundamentación\r\nde su resolución debe hacerse oralmente con la participación de todas las\r\npartes intervinientes y con sustento en las\r\nalegaciones planteadas en ese escenario. Su decisión se plasma, necesariamente,\r\nen un acta de la audiencia oral con el propósito que la decisión pueda ser\r\nrevisada, posteriormente, por un superior, pero la amplitud de la fundamentación es necesaria en la audiencia llevada a cabo\r\noralmente con la participación de todos los involucrados. Así las cosas, la\r\nfunción del juez en esta etapa es, precisamente, de garantía de los derechos de\r\nlas partes y de cumplimiento de las formalidades previstas en la legislación\r\nprocesal penal en protección de los derechos fundamentales. La exigencia de fundamentación de la decisión que motiva la imposición de\r\nmedidas cautelares no disminuye con la realización de una audiencia oral, sino\r\nque, por el contrario, se refuerza dicha garantía y se amplía la posibilidad de\r\ndefensa ante el propio juzgador de garantías. \r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nVI.- En este\r\nsentido, el Código Procesal Penal prevé las siguientes audiencias orales: la\r\naudiencia preliminar, en el artículo 316; la audiencia con respecto a la\r\naplicación de medidas cautelares, en el artículo 242; la audiencia sobre la\r\napelación, en el artículo 448; y el juicio oral y público, en el artículo 324 y\r\nsiguientes. De tal forma, el artículo 333 de dicho Código, indica que la\r\naudiencia debe ser oral para que declaren el imputado y las demás personas que\r\nparticipen en ella, ya que solo así se podrá conocer lo que cada parte pretende\r\ny apreciar la personalidad de los que declaran, preguntar y contrapreguntar,\r\naclarar el sentido de las expresiones, formular y replicar conclusiones, entre\r\notras cosas. La oralidad implica que la sentencia se fundamente en la prueba y\r\nlas alegaciones recibidas en el debate de viva voz; es la percepción directa\r\npor parte del juez, de las pruebas y de las manifestaciones de las partes y la\r\nparticipación del encartado, por lo que inevitablemente acarrea el cumplimiento\r\nde los restantes caracteres que debe respetar el proceso penal -publicidad,\r\ninmediación, continuidad, contradictorio e identidad física del juzgador-. Debe\r\nresaltarse que la oralidad no solo viabiliza la inmediación entre los sujetos\r\nprocesales y los elementos de prueba, sino que la impone, al exigir que las\r\nalegaciones y manifestaciones de parte, así como el examen probatorio se debe\r\nrealizar en forma oral y audible por los sujetos procesales. La experiencia\r\nhistórica enseña que cuando el sistema procesal busca proteger y garantizar los\r\nderechos de las partes hay una marcada inclinación hacia la oralidad,\r\npublicidad y contradictorio, mientras que cuando lo pretendido es un mayor\r\ncontrol del Estado, en detrimento de los derechos de los individuos, los\r\nprocesos tienden hacia la escritura y las actuaciones procesales reservadas.\r\nAdemás, la necesidad del respeto a la oralidad se torna aún más evidente si se\r\nconsidera que el Estado republicano y democrático que consagra la Constitución\r\nPolítica impone la obligación de establecer un proceso penal basado en un\r\njuicio oral y público que permita un acercamiento de los ciudadanos con la\r\nadministración de justicia. En ese sentido, y en procura del respeto al\r\nprincipio de análisis, la Sala ha manifestado que el sistema procesal tiene una\r\nserie de normas y principios que se dirigen exclusivamente a mantener vigentes\r\nlas garantías fundamentales de la persona sometida a un proceso, por demandarlo\r\nasí el artículo 39 de la Constitución Política, donde se reconoce la obligación\r\ndel Estado de imponer sanciones sólo a través del respeto al debido proceso,\r\nnorma suficientemente desarrollada por la jurisprudencia constitucional. Así,\r\nya desde la sentencia número 1739-92, de las once horas cuarenta y cinco\r\nminutos del primero de julio de 1992, señaló la Sala que:\n\r\n\r\n\n“[la oralidad] es el derecho del\r\nimputado y su defensor de intervenir en el proceso y, particularmente, de\r\nhacerse oír por el juez, de traer al proceso toda la prueba que consideren\r\noportuna para respaldar su defensa, de controlar la actividad de la parte o\r\npartes contrarias, y de combatir sus argumentos y las pruebas de cargo”.\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nEn definitiva, el legislador impuso\r\norientaciones al juzgador con el fin de garantizar su misión, basado en\r\nprincipios como la oralidad, concentración, inmediación, contradictorio y\r\npublicidad, siendo así que la oralidad permite al imputado ejercer la defensa\r\nmaterial, formulando preguntas mediante su defensor o brindándole detalles a\r\néste con el fin de poder analizar la credibilidad de la prueba que se está\r\nevacuando, especialmente cuando se encuentre de por medio la libertad personal\r\ndel imputado, por lo que desatender este principio elemental es desatender\r\nigualmente la garantía del debido proceso, siendo así que resulta inviable el\r\ndictado de resoluciones que restrinjan la libertad personal sin haber respetado\r\npara ello la plena oralidad exigida por el ordenamiento –ver en este sentido,\r\nsentencias números 2007-3019, de las catorce horas treinta minutos del 7\r\nde marzo de 2007 2008-3923, de las catorce horas treinta y seis minutos del 12\r\nde marzo de 2008; 2008-16562, de las catorce horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del\r\n5 de noviembre de 2008; y 2009-1975, de las dieciocho horas cuarenta y dos\r\nminutos del 10 de febrero de 2009-.\n\r\n\r\n\n VII.- La oralidad respecto de la aplicación de las\r\nmedidas cautelares. Bajo el mismo orden de ideas, se ha determinado que en\r\nmateria de medidas cautelares, la oralidad resulta esencial e ineludible cuando\r\nse trate de restringir la libertad personal; es decir, siempre debe observarse\r\nla oralidad cuando se trate de la aplicación de la prisión preventiva. Esto es\r\nasí incluso en segunda instancia, donde sí está permitido conocer y resolver de\r\nmanera escrita la apelación contra las medidas cautelares sustitutivas de la\r\nprisión preventiva, pero no así lo que corresponda a esta medida cautelar, pues\r\npara conocer una medida que pueda implicar la limitación de la libertad\r\npersonal, debe otorgarse la plena oportunidad e inmediatez de defensa que\r\ngarantiza la oralidad. Así, mediante sentencia número 2010-4032, de las nueve\r\nhoras cincuenta y nueve minutos del 26 de febrero de 2010, señaló la Sala que:\n\r\n\r\n\n“En el caso bajo estudio se está\r\nante el conocimiento de una medida cautelar de distinta índole, que por su propia\r\nnaturaleza es sustitutiva de la prisión preventiva y, por ende, sin posibilidad\r\nde afectar de modo alguno la libertad personal del tutelado. En ese sentido, lo\r\naducido ante la jurisdicción constitucional dista de ser un conflicto en torno\r\na la libertad personal, pues la oralidad reclamada es ineludible e\r\ninfranqueable cuando de la medida cautelar de prisión preventiva se trate, mas\r\nno en todos los casos donde se conozca una medida cautelar de diversa\r\nnaturaleza y sin impacto sobre la libertad personal. En todo caso, la oralidad\r\nsí fue respetada para conocer y resolver en primera instancia la solicitud de\r\nmodificación de medidas cautelares, por lo que al no haber sido solicitado por\r\nla defensa, y tratarse de una medida sustitutiva, el órgano a quem optó por conocer de manera directa la impugnación\r\nsin celebrar audiencia oral y resolver en consecuencia, sin que ello implique\r\nde manera alguna una amenaza o violación para la libertad personal en los\r\ntérminos planteados. (…) De tal forma, siendo que en el caso concreto la medida\r\ncautelar impugnada carece de impacto alguno sobre la libertad personal, se\r\ndescarta la violación constitucional aducida y, por tanto, el recurso debe ser\r\ndeclarado sin lugar, como en efecto se dispone.”.\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n VIII.- El caso concreto. La situación del\r\ntutelado. Del estudio de los autos y del informe rendido bajo fe de\r\njuramento, la Sala tiene por acreditado que contra el amparado se sigue causa\r\npenal ante el Juzgado Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José, dentro de\r\nla cual por audiencia que se realizó de manera oral (ver folios 448 y 449\r\nlegajo de medidas cautelares) se dictó prórroga de la prisión preventiva por\r\nseis meses más, que vencen el 04 de marzo de 2011, a\r\nsolicitud del Ministerio Público; decisión que se adoptó una vez\r\nconcedida la palabra a los defensores y recibida la prueba testimonial\r\nofrecida. Se fundamenta la medida adoptada en el grado de probabilidad\r\nsuficiente y razonable para tener por cometido el delito de legitimación de\r\ncapitales que se le atribuye, así como los peligros procesales de\r\nobstaculización y fuga, ser delincuencia organizada y sancionarse con pena\r\nprivativa de libertad, por no haber variación de las circunstancias de\r\nlos imputados que hagan aminorar los peligros procesales, así como tampoco hay\r\nelementos de prueba que vengan a refutar el grado de probabilidad fundamentado;\r\nsino que por el contrario el informe del Organismo de Investigación Judicial\r\nevidencia el grado de probabilidad. Cuestiona en esta vía el recurrente que, en\r\nvirtud de la revisión trimestral de oficio, con base en lo dispuesto en el\r\nartículo 253 del Código Procesal Penal, la jueza penal recurrida dictó la \r\nresolución de las 15:00 horas del 03 de diciembre de 2010 del Juzgado Penal de\r\nPrimer Circuito Judicial de San José, en la que dispone mantener la\r\nprisión preventiva hasta el 04 de marzo de 2011, pero sin darle audiencia,\r\nsituación que admite la autoridad recurrida en el informe rendido a la Sala.\r\nDel cuadro fáctico anterior, con base en la jurisprudencia citada en los considerandos anteriores de esta sentencia, estima este\r\nTribunal que la falta de celebración de la audiencia, previo a la decisión que\r\nmantiene la medida cautelar y que cuestiona el recurrente, incide\r\ndesfavorablemente en el ejercicio de la defensa del amparado porque no se\r\nobservó en esta etapa procesal la oralidad, pese a tratarse de la aplicación de\r\nla prisión preventiva, medida cautelar que por tener impacto directo en la\r\nlibertad del tutelado, la oralidad reclamada resulta ineludible e\r\ninfranqueable. Consecuente con lo expuesto procede declarar con lugar el\r\nrecurso sin ordenar la libertad del amparado.”", "body_en_text": "III.- Habeas corpus and the competence of the constitutional jurisdiction. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 15 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, habeas corpus is a special and preferential remedy (recurso) through which the restoration of the constitutional right to liberty, the suspension of any order threatening it, and the protection of personal integrity are requested, without this jurisdiction thereby becoming one more instance in the criminal process. Consequently, habeas corpus is processed through a summary, simple, and informal procedure, by which the right to freedom of movement (libertad de tránsito) and the physical integrity of citizens vis-à-vis public authority are protected, given that the Chamber may only hear those actions of ordinary courts that have a strict relationship to and impact on personal liberty, whether its effective restriction or the direct threat of restriction –see in this regard judgment number 2001-766, of fourteen hours fifty-seven minutes of January 30, 2001–. Thus, it is not for the Chamber to oversee the assessment of the evidentiary record (acervo probatorio) made by the criminal jurisdictional authorities –judgment number 2001-3258, of eight hours fifty-six minutes of April 27, 2001–, nor to verify that a correct application of criminal law has occurred. Consequently, it is not incumbent upon the Constitutional Chamber to verify, among other aspects, whether the material evidence, the testimonies and statements of witnesses, victims or defendants, and any other element of proof that could have existed in the case file, demonstrate the guilt or innocence of the charged person, just as eminently material aspects occurring or produced during the processing of the summary proceedings must not be assessed by this jurisdiction. Indeed, the Chamber's case law has been consistent in defining the scope of this jurisdiction, stating in this regard through judgment number 2002-8811 of sixteen hours twenty minutes of September 10, 2002 –reiterated, among others, by judgment number 2007-18662, of eleven hours nineteen minutes of December 21, 2007–, that:\n\n\"[T]his Chamber is not one more instance in the criminal process, nor is it its place to substitute for criminal judges in the exercise of their functions, under penalty of unduly interfering in the sphere of competence of the criminal jurisdiction, in open contradiction with Article 153 of the Political Constitution. Therefore, it is within the criminal process itself that the appropriateness of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) in the specific case of each defendant must be determined, in accordance with the various elements of conviction (elementos de convicción) existing, the concurrence of the circumstances that justify it, and their particular relationship to the process. Neither does it correspond to review in this venue the correct assessment of the evidentiary material existing in the criminal process, since determining the degree of forcefulness or the probative value that should be attributed to each element of conviction, in relation to the participation of each defendant, is properly resolved in the criminal venue. By reason of this, if the appellant disagrees with the evidentiary assessment made by the competent judge, that refers to an objection properly raised in the criminal process, through the remedies and before the instances expressly provided for that purpose…\".\n\n\n\nIV.- The right to a defense. The Chamber's case law has been reiterative in recognizing the right to a defense, both in the criminal sphere and in all sanctioning matters or those that may result in the suppression or restriction of the subjective rights of individuals. The right to a defense is enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights, a provision that contains express stipulations for criminal processes, as well as in Article 39 of the Political Constitution, and numerals 12 and 13 of the Código Procesal Penal. In effect, Article 13 of this latter legal body states:\n\n\"From the first moment of criminal prosecution and until the end of the execution of the sentence, the defendant shall have the right to assistance and qualified legal defense (defensa técnica letrada). For such purposes, they may choose a defense attorney of their confidence, but, should they not do so, a public defender shall be assigned to them.\n\nThe right to a defense is inalienable.\"\n\nThe right to a defense, as a fundamental right in itself, and as a consubstantial right for the effective protection of fundamental rights, is fully protectable (tutelable) by the constitutional jurisdiction.\n\nThis is recognized by Article 16 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which grants the Chamber the power to examine, through the habeas corpus action, other violations distinct from personal liberty or integrity, but which directly affect the validity of this fundamental freedom, a situation that must be analyzed if it arises in the case under study.\n\nV.- **On orality in criminal procedure.** The Constitutional Chamber has had the opportunity to analyze the importance and necessity of orality in criminal matters. The cited provision of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights indicates that as part of the judicial guarantees, every person has the right \"to be heard, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial judge or tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any criminal accusation made against them, or for the determination of their rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.\" For its part, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that \"All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals of justice. Every person shall have the right to be heard publicly and with due guarantees by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, established by law, in the substantiation of any criminal charge made against them or for the determination of their rights or obligations of a civil nature,\" while the Political Constitution defines the right to prompt and complete justice, or rather, the right to effective judicial protection, which provides a guarantee for persons of easy and unrestricted access to judicial bodies, which must be understood both as the possibility of accessing the justice system and as a guarantee that permeates the entire judicial proceeding. From the comprehensive reading of the partially transcribed norms, it follows that the use of orality during the preparatory phase constitutes a basic instrument for exercising an efficient defense of the accused's interests, consistent with the essential principles governing criminal procedure—such as the accusatory principle, the principle of contradiction, the immediacy of evidence, and, ultimately, the enhancement of the right of defense, efficiency, and speed of the proceeding. There is certainty that oral hearings are a full guarantee for all parties to present their reasons, with the guarantee of contradiction and in a live voice, to defend the different interlocutory claims that could affect the rights of the procedural subjects, particularly when personal liberty is at stake. The observance of due process, the right of defense, and orality in hearings seeks to ensure that the specific reasons underlying the Public Prosecutor’s Office's petition are concretely discussed and that the defense's position is heard prior to the imposition of a precautionary measure that restricts personal liberty. Likewise, the role of the guarantees judge is enhanced so that they oversee the effective fulfillment of the grounds justifying the imposition of the precautionary measure and that this measure, in turn, fulfills its purposes, such that it is instrumental, temporary, subject to jurisdictional controls depending on the need for its maintenance or extension, and has precautionary purposes so that it does not become an advance of the penalty. The orality in the hearing for imposing these precautionary measures intends for the parties to present their petitions and arguments verbally, in the presence of the judge, and in a contradictory manner, which means, in parallel—by imperative of concentration—that the judges must resolve orally and immediately the petitions submitted for their consideration, based on the information discussed in the hearing, in order to guarantee the right to a prompt and complete resolution that analyzes the deprivation of liberty and the need to maintain precautionary measures. Due to the foregoing, the reasoning of their decision must be given orally with the participation of all intervening parties and based on the allegations raised in that setting. Their decision is necessarily recorded in a record of the oral hearing so that the decision can be reviewed later by a superior authority, but the breadth of the reasoning is necessary in the hearing conducted orally with the participation of all those involved. Therefore, the judge's function at this stage is precisely to guarantee the rights of the parties and ensure compliance with the formalities provided in the criminal procedural legislation in protection of fundamental rights. The requirement for a reasoned decision motivating the imposition of precautionary measures does not diminish with the holding of an oral hearing, but rather, on the contrary, said guarantee is reinforced and the possibility of defense before the guarantees judge is expanded.\n\nVI.- In this regard, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the following oral hearings: the preliminary hearing, in Article 316; the hearing regarding the application of precautionary measures, in Article 242; the hearing on appeal, in Article 448; and the oral and public trial, in Article 324 and following. Thus, Article 333 of said Code indicates that the hearing must be oral so that the accused and the other persons participating in it may testify, since only in this way can one learn what each party seeks and assess the personality of those who testify, ask questions and cross-examine, clarify the meaning of expressions, formulate and rebut conclusions, among other things. Orality implies that the judgment is based on the evidence and allegations received in the live-voice debate; it is the judge's direct perception of the evidence and the parties' statements, as well as the participation of the defendant, which inevitably entails compliance with the remaining characteristics that the criminal proceeding must respect—publicity, immediacy, continuity, contradiction, and the physical identity of the judge. It must be emphasized that orality not only enables immediacy between the procedural subjects and the elements of proof, but also imposes it, by requiring that the allegations and party statements, as well as evidentiary examination, be carried out orally and audibly by the procedural subjects. Historical experience teaches that when the procedural system seeks to protect and guarantee the rights of the parties, there is a marked inclination towards orality, publicity, and contradiction, while when greater State control is sought, to the detriment of individuals' rights, proceedings tend towards writing and reserved procedural actions. Furthermore, the need to respect orality becomes even more evident if one considers that the republican and democratic State enshrined in the Political Constitution imposes the obligation to establish a criminal proceeding based on an oral and public trial that allows citizens closer access to the administration of justice. In that sense, and in pursuit of respecting the principle of analysis, the Chamber has stated that the procedural system contains a series of rules and principles aimed exclusively at keeping the fundamental guarantees of the person subjected to a proceeding valid, as demanded by Article 39 of the Political Constitution, which recognizes the State's obligation to impose sanctions only through respect for due process, a norm sufficiently developed by constitutional jurisprudence. Thus, since judgment number 1739-92, at eleven hours and forty-five minutes on July first, nineteen ninety-two, the Chamber stated that:\n\n\"[orality] is the right of the accused and their defender to intervene in the proceeding and, particularly, to be heard by the judge, to bring into the proceeding all evidence they deem appropriate to support their defense, to control the activity of the opposing party or parties, and to combat their arguments and the incriminating evidence.\"\n\nUltimately, the legislator imposed orientations on the judge in order to guarantee their mission, based on principles such as orality, concentration, immediacy, contradiction, and publicity, such that orality allows the accused to exercise material defense, formulating questions through their defender or providing details to them in order to analyze the credibility of the evidence being presented, especially when the personal liberty of the accused is at stake, so disregarding this elementary principle is to equally disregard the guarantee of due process, making the issuance of resolutions restricting personal liberty unfeasible without having fully respected the orality required by the legal system—see in this regard, judgments numbers 2007-3019, at fourteen hours and thirty minutes on March 7, 2007; 2008-3923, at fourteen hours and thirty-six minutes on March 12, 2008; 2008-16562, at fourteen hours and forty-eight minutes on November 5, 2008; and 2009-1975, at eighteen hours and forty-two minutes on February 10, 2009.\n\nVII.- **Orality regarding the application of precautionary measures.** Under the same line of thought, it has been determined that in matters of precautionary measures, orality is essential and unavoidable when it comes to restricting personal liberty; that is, orality must always be observed when applying pretrial detention. This is so even in the second instance, where it is permitted to hear and resolve the appeal of substitute precautionary measures to pretrial detention in writing, but not when it concerns this precautionary measure, because to hear a measure that may entail the limitation of personal liberty, the full opportunity and immediacy of defense that orality guarantees must be granted. Thus, in judgment number 2010-4032, at nine hours and fifty-nine minutes on February 26, 2010, the Chamber stated that:\n\n\"In the case under study, we are faced with a precautionary measure of a different nature, which by its own nature is a substitute for pretrial detention and, therefore, without the possibility of affecting the personal liberty of the protected party in any way. In that sense, what is alleged before the constitutional jurisdiction is far from being a conflict concerning personal liberty, since the orality claimed is unavoidable and insurmountable when it comes to the precautionary measure of pretrial detention, but not in all cases where a precautionary measure of a different nature and without impact on personal liberty is heard. In any case, orality was respected for hearing and resolving the request for modification of precautionary measures in the first instance; therefore, as it was not requested by the defense, and it being a substitute measure, the court a quo opted to hear the challenge directly without holding an oral hearing and resolved accordingly, without this implying in any way a threat or violation to personal liberty in the terms presented. (…) Thus, given that in the specific case the challenged precautionary measure lacks any impact on personal liberty, the alleged constitutional violation is dismissed and, therefore, the appeal must be declared without merit, as is hereby ordered.\"\n\nVIII.- **The specific case. The situation of the protected party.** From the study of the case file and the report rendered under oath, the Chamber finds it proven that a criminal case is being pursued against the petitioner before the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, within which, by means of a hearing conducted orally (see folios 448 and 449 of the precautionary measures file), a six-month extension of pretrial detention was ordered, expiring on March 4, 2011, at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office; a decision adopted after granting the floor to the defenders and receiving the offered testimonial evidence. The adopted measure is based on the degree of sufficient and reasonable probability to consider the crime of money laundering attributed to him as committed, as well as the procedural dangers of obstruction and flight, it being organized crime and punishable by a custodial sentence, because there is no change in the circumstances of the accused that would lessen the procedural dangers, nor are there elements of evidence to refute the grounded degree of probability; rather, on the contrary, the report of the Judicial Investigation Agency demonstrates the degree of probability. The appellant challenges in this venue that, by virtue of the official quarterly review, based on the provisions of Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appealed criminal judge issued the resolution at 3:00 p.m. on December 3, 2010, of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, in which she orders to maintain pretrial detention until March 4, 2011, but without granting him a hearing, a situation admitted by the appealed authority in the report rendered to the Chamber. From the foregoing factual scenario, based on the jurisprudence cited in the preceding recitals of this judgment, this Tribunal considers that the lack of holding a hearing, prior to the decision that maintains the precautionary measure and that the appellant challenges, unfavorably affects the exercise of the defense of the protected party because orality was not observed at this procedural stage, despite dealing with the application of pretrial detention, a precautionary measure that, having a direct impact on the liberty of the protected party, makes the claimed orality unavoidable and insurmountable.\n\nConsequently, in accordance with the foregoing, the appeal must be granted without ordering the release of the protected party.”\n\nThus,\nalready since judgment number 1739-92, of eleven hours forty-five minutes of the first of July of 1992, the Chamber indicated that:\n\n“[orality (oralidad)] is the right of the accused and their defender to intervene in the process and, particularly, to be heard by the judge, to bring to the process all the evidence they consider appropriate to support their defense, to control the activity of the opposing party or parties, and to counter their arguments and the evidence for the prosecution.”\n\nUltimately, the legislator imposed guidelines on the judge in order to guarantee their mission, based on principles such as orality (oralidad), concentration, immediacy (inmediación), adversarial principle (contradictorio), and publicity (publicidad), it being so that orality (oralidad) allows the accused to exercise material defense, formulating questions through their defender or providing details to the latter in order to be able to analyze the credibility of the evidence being presented, especially when the personal liberty of the accused is at stake, such that disregarding this elementary principle is equally to disregard the guarantee of due process, it being so that the issuance of resolutions that restrict personal liberty without having respected for that purpose the full orality (oralidad) required by the legal system is unfeasible – see in this regard, judgments numbers 2007-3019, of fourteen hours thirty minutes of March 7, 2007; 2008-3923, of fourteen hours thirty-six minutes of March 12, 2008; 2008-16562, of fourteen hours forty-eight minutes of November 5, 2008; and 2009-1975, of eighteen hours forty-two minutes of February 10, 2009.\n\n            VII.- **Orality (oralidad) regarding the application of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares).** Along the same lines of reasoning, it has been determined that in matters of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), orality (oralidad) is essential and unavoidable when it concerns restricting personal liberty; that is, orality (oralidad) must always be observed when it concerns the application of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva). This is so even in the second instance, where it is indeed permitted to hear and resolve in writing the appeal against precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) that substitute pretrial detention (prisión preventiva), but not so for that which corresponds to this precautionary measure (medida cautelar), since to hear a measure that may imply the limitation of personal liberty, the full opportunity and immediacy of defense that orality (oralidad) guarantees must be granted. Thus, through judgment number 2010-4032, of nine hours fifty-nine minutes of February 26, 2010, the Chamber indicated that:\n\n“In the case under study, we are dealing with the hearing of a precautionary measure (medida cautelar) of a different nature, which by its own nature is a substitute for pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) and, therefore, without the possibility of affecting in any way the personal liberty of the protected person. In that sense, what is alleged before the constitutional jurisdiction is far from being a conflict regarding personal liberty, since the claimed orality (oralidad) is unavoidable and insurmountable when it concerns the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva), but not in all cases where a precautionary measure (medida cautelar) of a diverse nature and without impact on personal liberty is heard. In any case, orality (oralidad) was indeed respected to hear and resolve in the first instance the request for modification of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares), so since it was not requested by the defense, and being a substitute measure, the ad quem body opted to hear the challenge directly without holding an oral hearing and to resolve accordingly, without this in any way implying a threat to or violation of personal liberty in the terms raised. (…) In this way, since in the specific case the challenged precautionary measure (medida cautelar) lacks any impact on personal liberty, the alleged constitutional violation is dismissed and, therefore, the appeal must be declared without merit, as is hereby ordered.”\n\nVIII.- The specific case. The situation of the protected person. From the study of the case records and the report rendered under oath, the Chamber holds as accredited that criminal proceedings are being pursued against the amparo petitioner before the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, within which, by hearing that was held orally (see folios 448 and 449 of the precautionary measures file), an extension of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) was ordered for six more months, which expire on March 4, 2011, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office; a decision that was adopted once the floor was granted to the defenders and the offered testimonial evidence was received. The adopted measure is based on the sufficient and reasonable degree of probability to consider the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) attributed to them as committed, as well as the procedural dangers of obstruction (obstaculización) and flight, it being organized crime and punishable by a custodial sentence, because there was no variation in the circumstances of the accused that would lessen the procedural dangers, just as there are also no elements of evidence that would refute the substantiated degree of probability; but on the contrary, the report from the Judicial Investigation Agency demonstrates the degree of probability. The appellant challenges in this venue that, by virtue of the quarterly ex officio review, based on the provisions of Article 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the respondent criminal judge issued the resolution of 3:00 p.m. on December 3, 2010, from the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, in which she orders that pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) be maintained until March 4, 2011, but without granting a hearing, a situation that the respondent authority admits in the report rendered to the Chamber. From the foregoing factual scenario, based on the jurisprudence cited in the preceding considerandos of this judgment, this Tribunal considers that the lack of holding a hearing, prior to the decision that maintains the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) and that the appellant challenges, unfavorably affects the exercise of the defense of the amparo petitioner because orality (oralidad) was not observed at this procedural stage, despite it concerning the application of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva), a precautionary measure (medida cautelar) that, having a direct impact on the liberty of the protected person, makes the claimed orality (oralidad) unavoidable and insurmountable. Consistent with the foregoing, it is appropriate to declare the appeal with merit without ordering the release of the amparo petitioner.”" }