2023-11-03 12:22:21
Chamber III of the Chamber of Appeals and Guarantees of At payment confirmed the release on bail of the criminal lawyer Juan Manuel Fontana, prosecuted for asking a detainee for money with the aim of bribing a La Plata prosecutor so that he would not oppose his freedom, but strictly speaking it was a scam against the detainee. The lawyer spent a week behind bars and regained his freedom after the proposal of his defenders Flavio Gliemmo y Santiago Irisarri.
With votes from the chambermaids Alejandro Villordo y Fernando Mateosthe High Court confirmed the decision of the Guarantee Judge Pablo Raele who, in harsh terms, dictated the freedom of Fontana. In his resolution, the judge noted that “the illicit conduct attributed to Fontana presents a plus of disvalue outside of that, in particular due to its abjection, for the damage caused (in a broad sense), for the message that it harbors in the defendants by transforming a legal and natural act of the process into corrupt, trying to discredit the members of the Judiciary, and above all, denaturalizing ethics in professional work (given its condition of lawyer), that is, it constitutes a serious fact, the truth is that this alone is not sufficient to deny the benefit”.
In another passage of the judicial document, the guarantor magistrate understands that “No matter how inappropriate their conduct may be to me, it cannot shake the equanimity of the Magistrates, and they must maintain the same criteria adopted in the face of similar scenarios where the sentencing margins have been weighed.”the absence of pending proceedings, of conviction records, of discreditable conduct of the accused already subject to proceedings and the circumstances of the harmful event.”
The Chamber Prosecutor’s Office appealed the judge’s resolution, but it was rejected. In his vote, Chamberlain Villordo pointed out that he shares “the well-founded criteria of the guarantor judge, appreciating that the conduct of the accused during the process does not indicate – at least for the moment – that he would escape or hinder the investigation.”
Juan Manuel Fontana.jpg
Juan Manel Fontana during an oral trial hearing in the Criminal Court of La Plata
Photo: 0221
Villordo considered that Fontana is 39 years old, has roots and has no convicted criminal record. Furthermore, he assessed that he was detained at the home where he resides with his wife and minor daughter. In another passage of the resolution he considered that “the penalty imposed for the crime charged and the sentencing prognosis made in case of conviction, it is difficult to think that he will escape, especially taking into account the existence of roots.”
“At the same time, it should be noted that, in addition to the fact that several witnesses have given testimonial statements in the present case, there is documentary evidence (glossed in the case) in support of their statements; therefore, any attempt to influence in the witnesses,” the waiter reasoned.
“On the other hand, also in response to the appellant, I understand that beyond some clarifications about the scope of the term corruption, the truth is that even considering such an extreme, this does not simply imply leaving aside the principle of innocence or freedom during the process, thus overwhelming minimum constitutional guarantees,” Villordo stated.
Courts (5).jpg
In turn, Chamberlain Mateos agreed with his colleague and emphasized that “although it may sound obvious, one should not lose sight of the fact that precautionary measures restricting personal freedom during the criminal process are exceptional in nature and only tend to ensure the ends of the case.” process, while it is not possible to conceive in our legal system the application of an early sentence due to the imperative of the principle of innocence, which is deduced from what is regulated in article 18 of the National Constitution”.
“On the other hand, even without ignoring the entity of the preliminary disvalue of action derived from the fact in question, the truth is that this ‘objective and provisional assessment of the characteristics of the fact’ (…) does not lead by itself – and in a mechanical way – – to ‘reasonably presume’ that the accused ‘will try to evade the action of Justice or hinder the investigation.’ The focus should not be lost: in this section of analysis (whether or not it comes from a bail bond) the intensity of the injustice can (and should) be considered as plausible data as long as it reasonably reflects procedural risks,” Mateos based his vote and added: “In this precise sense, a synergy between attributed behavior-procedural danger should be made explicit, but in the case it is not noted that the specific notes relating to the preliminary conduct reproach lead per se to a well-founded hypothesis that the accused at liberty is going to hinder the investigation, be stubborn or evade the action of Justice, taking into account the counter-motives considered by the judge and the multiple tools used (special obligations). in relation to the bail granted”.
Finally, he recalled that “the appeal is for the accused a guarantee of constitutional roots, while the fiscal appeal is only a legal prerogative (…), in short, the appellant prosecutor fails to demonstrate that the judge’s decision was called into question. necessarily translates into a true impossibility for the State to exercise” the right to punish (ius puniendi).
#confirm #release #lawyer #accused #money #bribe #Plata #prosecutor