Criminal Procedure Code at Chile

26 Apr 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Procedure Code in Chile

1. Introduction

Chile’s criminal procedure is governed by the Código Procesal Penal (Criminal Procedure Code), which was fully implemented in 2000 to replace the old inquisitorial system. It introduced an adversarial, oral trial system with the aim of making criminal justice more transparent, efficient, and rights-respecting.

Key principles of the Chilean Criminal Procedure Code:

Adversarial and oral proceedings: Trials are public, evidence is presented orally, and judges act as neutral arbitrators.

Presumption of innocence: The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Role of the Public Prosecutor (Ministerio Público): Investigates crimes and prosecutes cases independently of the police.

Defense Rights: Defendants have the right to counsel, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses.

Separation of functions: Judges investigate evidence and rule on cases in trials; prosecutors manage investigations.

2. Structure of the Criminal Process

Investigation Stage:

Conducted by the Public Prosecutor with police assistance.

Involves collecting evidence, taking witness statements, and identifying suspects.

Formal Charges:

Prosecutor files charges in court once sufficient evidence is gathered.

Preliminary Hearings (Audiencia Preliminar):

The court decides on preventive detention or release conditions.

Trial Stage (Juicio Oral):

Oral proceedings where both prosecutor and defense present evidence and witnesses.

Judges deliberate and issue a verdict.

Appeals (Recursos):

Convicted parties can appeal to higher courts.

3. Illustrative Cases Under the Criminal Procedure Code

Case 1: The “La Moneda Arson Case”

Facts: In 2003, a group of protesters set fire to a building in Santiago.

Process: Prosecutors conducted an investigation, gathered witness statements, and collected forensic evidence.

Trial: Oral hearings were held, with defense lawyers cross-examining witnesses and challenging forensic reports.

Outcome: Defendants were convicted of arson and property damage; some were acquitted of aggravated charges.

Significance: Demonstrates transparency and adversarial procedure, with the court balancing prosecution evidence and defense arguments.

Case 2: High-Profile Corruption Case – “Municipal Embezzlement”

Facts: A municipal official was accused of embezzling public funds in 2010.

Process: The Public Prosecutor investigated, traced financial transactions, and subpoenaed documents.

Trial: Oral hearings allowed the defense to present accounting experts.

Outcome: The official was convicted of fraud and sentenced to prison; appeal reduced the sentence.

Significance: Illustrates the code’s role in handling white-collar crime with evidentiary transparency and oral proceedings.

Case 3: Drug Trafficking Case – “Valparaíso Network”

Facts: A drug trafficking network operating in Valparaíso was dismantled in 2015.

Process: Police raids and surveillance were coordinated by the Public Prosecutor.

Trial: Oral trial involved multiple defendants; each had separate defense counsel.

Outcome: Some defendants received long prison terms; others acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Significance: Shows adversarial process, defendant rights, and reliance on evidence presented in court rather than written dossiers.

Case 4: Homicide Trial – “Puente Alto Case”

Facts: A homicide occurred in 2012 in Puente Alto.

Process: The prosecutor investigated the murder, collected witness statements, and obtained forensic reports.

Trial: Oral trial allowed real-time cross-examination; victim’s family could attend hearings.

Outcome: Defendant convicted; mitigating circumstances considered for sentencing.

Significance: Demonstrates public nature of trials, adversarial principle, and fairness in judicial proceedings.

Case 5: Domestic Violence Case – “Santiago Family Case”

Facts: In 2017, a man was accused of repeated domestic violence.

Process: Investigation included medical reports, testimony of the victim, and police reports.

Trial: Oral hearings enabled immediate confrontation between accused and witnesses.

Outcome: Convicted of domestic violence; received both imprisonment and mandatory counseling.

Significance: Shows application of criminal procedure in protecting vulnerable victims, integrating evidence and witness rights.

Case 6: Cybercrime Case – “Banking Fraud”

Facts: In 2019, individuals were accused of hacking banking systems.

Process: Digital evidence analyzed and presented in trial; defense experts challenged technical evidence.

Trial: Oral proceedings required detailed explanation of technical evidence.

Outcome: Defendants convicted of computer fraud; some acquitted due to procedural irregularities.

Significance: Demonstrates how the Criminal Procedure Code adapts to modern types of crime and maintains adversarial principles.

4. Key Features Illustrated by the Cases

Feature	Explanation	Example
Oral Proceedings	Evidence presented orally; judges hear witnesses directly	Homicide & domestic violence cases
Adversarial Principle	Both prosecutor and defense can challenge evidence	Drug trafficking & corruption cases
Public Trials	Trials open to the public; transparency ensured	Puente Alto homicide
Role of Prosecutor	Independent investigation & prosecution	All cases above
Defendant Rights	Presumption of innocence, legal counsel, cross-examination	Cybercrime and municipal embezzlement
Appeals	Convictions can be challenged in higher courts	Corruption case reduced sentence on appeal