With the second rejection of the request of the major general Adam Caceres Silvestre so that the criminal action against him derived from the so-called operation choral; and that of the Supreme Court of Justice In the case of Los Tres Brazos, the expectations that other former officials accused of corruption have in the same sense begin to falter.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal of the National District confirmed the rejection that the First Collegiate Court gave on August 5, 2025 to the petition made by the former head of the Presidential Security Corps (cusep) and the main accused in the criminal network that from that organization, the Tourist Security Corps (Cestur), and Conani, would have defrauded the State of RD$4.5 billion.
At the time, the court of first instance justified its rejection decision after verifying that the period elapsed in the process that is followed against C{aceres Silvestre and other senior officials, “is reasonable considering the nature and particularities of the process.”
Dissatisfied with that decision, the major general appealed it to the Court, whose second criminal chamber, made up of judges Ysis Muñiz (who presided), Luis Jiménez Rosa and Teófilo Andújar, confirmed it in all its parts.
Allegations of the accused
The former director of Cusep based his challenge to the resolution in question on 9 alleged defects, including errors of law and motivation; violation of the law and constitutional rights binding; factual error, contradiction and distortion of the concept of complexity to ignore the peremptory term of article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP); and replacement of the legal limit by a subjective criterion.
According to the accused, the court aquo “replaces the objective and peremptory limit of 4 years established in article 148 of the CPP, confirmed by binding constitutional jurisprudence, “with a subjective standard of reasonable time derived from the nature and particularities of the process”, reasoning that transforms a constitutional guarantee into a clause open to judicial discretion.”
Court ruling
In this regard, the judges of the Court proceeded to reject the appellant’s appeal, stating that, contrary to his allegations, the court here acted in accordance with the law.
It indicates that although it is true that the court has established that “it cannot determine the knowledge of the case followed by the accused Adan Benoni C{aceres Silvestre and shares, that there has been an undue delay”, it is no less true that the magistrate judges who make up this court justify their decision in the procedural activities that have occurred from the moment in which the coercive measure hearing was held and the same was imposed on the co-defendants with respect to the criminal justice system, “respecting the right of all those involved (…) adjusting it to the nature of the case and the reality of our penal system”, elements that have been positivized in the CPP instituted by Law 97-25 of December 7, in its article 148, however the court aquo did not indicate, as the appellant alleges, that it recognizes that neither party had caused undue delays.
