Supreme Court annuls conviction of Pellerano and Mendoza
The SCJ heard the case known as "little Bancredito"
Diario Libre
The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice annulled the conviction of Manuel Arturo Pellerano Peña and Juan Felipe Mendoza and ordered the holding of a new trial in order to carry out a new evaluation of the evidence.
Likewise, the court ordered the suspension of the execution of the sentence and release under a bail bond of RD$10 million for both men, provided by a bail bond company.
The court also resolved to send the case to the First Chamber of the Penal Court of the Court of Appeals of the National District in order that there the case be re-evaluated again.
Judges Miriam German Brito, presiding, Alejandro Moscoso Segarra, Frank Soto Sanchez and Hirohito Reyes admitted the appeals for a revision submitted by Pellerano and Mendoza, against the firm and definitive sentence number 169-2008, issued on 11 September2008 by the Second Chamber of the Penal Court of the Appeals Court of the National District.
The release of Pellerano and Mendoza was carried out yesterday afternoon after fulfilling the requirements of the bail as established by the high court.
The SCJ said that both appellants provided as evidence a certification by the firm of KPMG that says that they did not issue a report on 4 June 2004 on the financial situation of the National Bank of Credit (Bancredito) as of 31 December 2002.
The Court of Cassation (or Annulment) established that the document provided by the appellants is sufficiently new evidence necessary in order to be admitted, since it proves, that besides no having been examined by the judges, it has a direct relation to the evidence debated in the trial and that served as the basis for the conviction.
Likewise, that the courts should accept the review of the case, annul the sentence and order the celebration of a new trial under the understanding that a new evaluation of the evidence is needed, since the piece of evidence offered is sufficiently important to influence in the decision that was annulled and arrive with certainty at a new decision which is fair and which solves the case.
The high court said that although the holding of the trial and the evaluation of the evidence is an attribution of the Court of the First Instance, in the kind of firm and definitive sentence coming from the Appeals Court, making use of its faculties, handed down a sentence directly, increasing the prison sentence.
The SCJ stressed that with respect to the request of suspension of the execution of the sentence, they felt that it was correct to accept the petition, attending the merits that have made the revision possible and that verify that during the course of the process the appellants appeared at the hearings when they were free.
Likewise, that the examination of the sentence which convicted them plainly shows that the certification by the KMPG firm was not subject to the evaluation by the judges, since together with the other evidence provided was declared unacceptable by the Court, a decision that was adopted by the majority of the votes of the collegiate tribunal, with the dissenting vote of two of the members, who accepted the criteria that the evidence provided was admissible in order to guarantee the defense of the accused.
The SCJ held that in the review they were able to prove that the controversial certification was no admitted by the judges who handed down the sentence.
They pointed out that a direct consequence of the review is the weakening of the authority of the final decision (res judicata), forcing to procedural truth to take precedence over the material, it is therefore necessary that the document indicated as new evidence, beside not having been evaluated by the judges, is plainly carrying such a force that it influences directly the demonstration of the non-existence of the facts.
The Bancredito case with the Central Bank, the so-called "big Bancredito", was withdrawn by the monetary authorities after reaching an agreement with the Pellerano family with the aim of paying the financial assistance which at one time the Central Bank gave to the Banco Nacional de Credito (Bancredito).
Both the Central Bank as well as the Justice Department stopped the penal process and the Second Collegiate Tribunal of the Penal Chamber of the Court of the First Instance of the National District issues its decision on 22 November 2010, absolving Pellerano and Mendoza of any wrong doing.
The decision by the Penal Chamber, known as the "Little case of Bancredito", refers to a complaint filed by several depositors of Bancredito for US$5.4 million dollars. These depositors were repaid and as a result withdrew their complaints, in spite of which, the case continued and a conviction was issued, first for a three year jail term and later to an eight year jail term when it was appealed. This was the case on which the Supreme Court of Justice has just handed down its sentence.
Likewise, the court ordered the suspension of the execution of the sentence and release under a bail bond of RD$10 million for both men, provided by a bail bond company.
The court also resolved to send the case to the First Chamber of the Penal Court of the Court of Appeals of the National District in order that there the case be re-evaluated again.
Judges Miriam German Brito, presiding, Alejandro Moscoso Segarra, Frank Soto Sanchez and Hirohito Reyes admitted the appeals for a revision submitted by Pellerano and Mendoza, against the firm and definitive sentence number 169-2008, issued on 11 September2008 by the Second Chamber of the Penal Court of the Appeals Court of the National District.
The release of Pellerano and Mendoza was carried out yesterday afternoon after fulfilling the requirements of the bail as established by the high court.
The SCJ said that both appellants provided as evidence a certification by the firm of KPMG that says that they did not issue a report on 4 June 2004 on the financial situation of the National Bank of Credit (Bancredito) as of 31 December 2002.
The Court of Cassation (or Annulment) established that the document provided by the appellants is sufficiently new evidence necessary in order to be admitted, since it proves, that besides no having been examined by the judges, it has a direct relation to the evidence debated in the trial and that served as the basis for the conviction.
Likewise, that the courts should accept the review of the case, annul the sentence and order the celebration of a new trial under the understanding that a new evaluation of the evidence is needed, since the piece of evidence offered is sufficiently important to influence in the decision that was annulled and arrive with certainty at a new decision which is fair and which solves the case.
The high court said that although the holding of the trial and the evaluation of the evidence is an attribution of the Court of the First Instance, in the kind of firm and definitive sentence coming from the Appeals Court, making use of its faculties, handed down a sentence directly, increasing the prison sentence.
The SCJ stressed that with respect to the request of suspension of the execution of the sentence, they felt that it was correct to accept the petition, attending the merits that have made the revision possible and that verify that during the course of the process the appellants appeared at the hearings when they were free.
Likewise, that the examination of the sentence which convicted them plainly shows that the certification by the KMPG firm was not subject to the evaluation by the judges, since together with the other evidence provided was declared unacceptable by the Court, a decision that was adopted by the majority of the votes of the collegiate tribunal, with the dissenting vote of two of the members, who accepted the criteria that the evidence provided was admissible in order to guarantee the defense of the accused.
The SCJ held that in the review they were able to prove that the controversial certification was no admitted by the judges who handed down the sentence.
They pointed out that a direct consequence of the review is the weakening of the authority of the final decision (res judicata), forcing to procedural truth to take precedence over the material, it is therefore necessary that the document indicated as new evidence, beside not having been evaluated by the judges, is plainly carrying such a force that it influences directly the demonstration of the non-existence of the facts.
The Bancredito case with the Central Bank, the so-called "big Bancredito", was withdrawn by the monetary authorities after reaching an agreement with the Pellerano family with the aim of paying the financial assistance which at one time the Central Bank gave to the Banco Nacional de Credito (Bancredito).
Both the Central Bank as well as the Justice Department stopped the penal process and the Second Collegiate Tribunal of the Penal Chamber of the Court of the First Instance of the National District issues its decision on 22 November 2010, absolving Pellerano and Mendoza of any wrong doing.
The decision by the Penal Chamber, known as the "Little case of Bancredito", refers to a complaint filed by several depositors of Bancredito for US$5.4 million dollars. These depositors were repaid and as a result withdrew their complaints, in spite of which, the case continued and a conviction was issued, first for a three year jail term and later to an eight year jail term when it was appealed. This was the case on which the Supreme Court of Justice has just handed down its sentence.
Diario Libre
Continuar con Google