He Court Constitutional (T.C.) canceled the judgment who sentenced the former Major League player to six months in prison Miguel Odalis Tejada Martínez, which originated from the issuance of checks without funds to pay a debt made by the defendant.
He T.C. considered that the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected an appeal by Tejada against the judgment that condemned him, “did not adequately protect the principle of legalitythe right to defense and the due process of the appellant”.
Tejada appealed in all instances judicial opinion number 042-2019-SSEN-00109, of the Fourth Chamber of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the National District, of July 2019, which found him guilty of scam for issuing the checks without resources.
By taking action against that ruling, Miguel Odalis alleged that the SCJ and the judges of the Court of Appeal incurred rape due process of law “when endorsing a judgment in which the provision of article 40 of the well-known law of Checkswhich in no way regulates the form or the official who must practice the I protest“.
In your judgmentnumber 001-022-2021-SSEN01058, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the Law 2859 on Checks was not expressly repealed by the law of Notarialso “it is in full force and the bailiff has the authority to carry out the acts of protesting checks.”
He Constitutional Court contradicted the SCJ’s argument and concluded that “contrary to said criterion the jurisdiction of the sheriffs to carry out protests checks attributed by articles 41, 54 and 55, 4 of the Law no. 2859, about Checksyes it was repealed by the Law no. 140-2015″ on notarization.
He added that this regulation, 140-15, which establishes the School Dominican of Notariesas seen in article 51, paragraph 3, “clearly provides, in article 51, the “exclusive power of the notary” in the implementation or lifting of the process verbal in cases of I protest of checkstherefore, this last special legislation being a norm promulgated after the Law no. 2859, about Checkswhich is also special, is the law that turns out to be applicable to the case of the species, by virtue of the fact that, moreover, it was the legislation in force at the time of beginning the process judicial of the species.”
“Consequently, since the aforementioned act of I protest of checkbecause it was made by a server public -sheriff- without legal jurisdiction to do so, it is an ineffective element of evidence that violates principle of legalitywhich violates the due process of the accused, as provided in article 69.7 of the Constitution of the Republic,” ruled the T.C. by accepting the appeal of revision constitutional filed by Tejada Martínez.
Henry Rafael Soto Lara, who is suing Tejada for a debt that already reaches 9 million pesos, “did not file a defense document, however, the appellant, Mr. Miguel Odalis Tejada Martínez, had notified him of the present appeal for constitutional review.” , according to opinion TC/0624/24
In your judgment T.C./0624/24, issued last September and uploaded on its website recently, also adds that the aforementioned “flawed” act was invoked by the accused, as a means of defense in the various instances judicial proceedings, without being responded to appropriately in accordance with the law.
SCJ must hear the case again
Consequently, at annular the judgment of the SCJ that ratified the conviction of the accused, sent the record to the secretariat general of the SCJ “so that the case is known again by the jurisdiction competentthat is, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice”, according to the criterion settled by that court.
The judgment T.C./0624/24 was signed by the required majority of the judges, “but the signatures of the judges do not appear. magistrates Manuel Ulises Bonnelly Vega and María del Carmen Santana de Cabrera, because they do not participated in deliberation and voting”.
