HomeCrimeTSJ ordered a new trial for the subject who killed the brother-in-law

TSJ ordered a new trial for the subject who killed the brother-in-law

Virgilio Segundo Fernández González received several stab wounds

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ordered a new trial against Pedro José Nava Urdaneta accused of murdering his brother-in-law Virgilio Segundo Fernández González with a knife. Such decision is contained in ruling No. 286 written by Judge Maikel Moreno and validated by the other members of the court, Carmen Marisela Castro and Elsa Gómez.

There it is reported that Fernández González was mortally wounded on April 3, 2021 by his brother-in-law Nava Urdaneta. He later died on May 8, 2021. This event occurred in Nava Urdaneta's home located in Santa Cruz de Mara (Zulia).

The forensic medicine determined the cause of death as “Septic shock due to point sepsis… as a complication of a sharp knife wound.” Based on this forensic study, the Public Ministry requested to open a trial against Nava Urdaneta due to her involvement in the crime of qualified homicide for futile or ignoble reasons.

This approach was approved by the 8th Control Court of Zulia on October 26, 2021. But the 6th Trial Court of Zulia changed the qualification and sentenced the subject to six years in prison for a crime different from that charged by the Public Ministry, that is, pre-intentional homicide with cause. That sentence was annulled by the Criminal Chamber because it confirmed the existence of public order defects that have resulted in the breach of effective judicial protection.”

In the specific case, the magistrates concluded that the Zulian judge “deviated from the logical itinerary to convict the accused, since he established a cause of death different from that reflected and determined by the anatomopathologist in the autopsy protocol, which clearly and precisely established that the cause of the victim's death was as a consequence of "Septic shock due to sepsis due to a sharp knife", leaving no room for doubts for interpretations or speculations about the true reason that caused the death of the victim. victim". The magistrates recalled that to convict a person of pre-intentional homicide with cause "it is essential that there be pre-existing circumstances unknown to the guilty party, or unforeseen causes or causes independent of the act, which without them the death would not have occurred."

The Chamber maintains that this inference of the judge who sentenced Nava Urdaneta is contradictory, "since in principle he considers that the malicious intention executed by the accused was to achieve a specific result (injury), and then determine that due to a pre-existing cause and supervening (Post-operative complication in colonoscopy), an effect occurred beyond the expected result.”

For this reason, the Chamber ordered a new trial against the accused.

Leave a response

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here