Attorney Porcell exerts power in fiscal performance

Attorney General of the Nation, Kenia Porcell, may have violated the principle of judicial independence to question the performance of the fifth circuit judge criminal Enrique Paniza, who decreed the invalidity of the preventive detention of Jose Raul Mulino and Alejandro Garuz in radars process.

Porcell statements were in the program Info Analysis at the station Omega Stereo, one day before the third anti-corruption prosecutor officially announced that he will appeal the judge's decision Paniza.

A statement from the Attorney Moore indicates that the prosecutor will file the notice of appeal on Monday 14 March before the Second Superior Court.

Meanwhile, the procurator Kenya Porcell called the invalidity decision of Judge Paniza as a decision is not "located" with the rules established in the Judicial Code.

The judge Paniza resolution declared the partial nullity of the proceedings, including proceedings as the preliminary statement, the arraignment and detention of Alejandro and Jose Raul Mulino Garuz found.

Who he reacted to these statements Porcell was Jose Raul Mulino son, who called unfortunate statements because the prosecutor would be intruding on custodial functions of anti-corruption prosecutor.

According Mulino, the Judicial Code grants independence to prosecutors, and the prosecutor, despite being his immediate superior, can not interfere in investigations.

He said this is a mechanism of pressure on the prosecutor submitted the appeal and also influences the decision will take the Second Superior Court.

He said it is contradictory to what is now pointing the procurator Porcell when on other occasions has said he does not interfere in the investigations carried their anti-corruption prosecutors in complex cases against former government officials.

Roniel Ortiz, a lawyer and former official of the Public Ministry, meanwhile, believes that the prosecutor is overlapping criminal acts.

Ensures that the Judicial Code empowers it to impose sanctions against prosecutors to investigate outside the term, but on the contrary, has come to justify this action to investigate outside term that in his opinion a crime.

Annulment Process

Lawyers consulted by Panama America believe that the judge's decision Paniza had to have been aimed at decreeing the nullity of the whole process.

Armando Fuente, top former prosecutor, he shares this view, "the judge to apply the nullity decreed inquest providence as a null act, therefore, is null entire process", he added.

He said that by annulling the diligence investigation leaves no indictments therefore no case if there are no suspects.

On the right there is a figure called 'legal factual binomial' which emphasizes that there is a process should be an offense and a subject to investigate the alleged crime.

Another important element that refers the lawyer is the fact that the annulled all proceedings from arraignment is also annulled the fiscally requesting legal appeal Mulino and Garuz.

Ramses Barrera, former general secretary of the Public Prosecution and defense of Jose Raul Mulino, considers that the arguments that establish the invalidity are well supported by the Judicial Code.

Barrera argued that Article 1950 of the Judicial Code nullity of the whole process is established when a violation of these regulations is given.

Panama America had access to the judge's decision Paniza and within the legal grounds to support its decision cites Article 1950 of the Judicial Code.

---

Un fallo de la Corte confirma legitimidad en resolución de juez

Existen fallos precedentes en la Corte Suprema de Justicia que han decretado la nulidad de procesos por investigar fuera del término que establece la ley.

Así se demuestra en el fundamento legal sustentado por el juez Enrique Paniza para decretar la libertad de José Raúl Mulino y Alejandro Garuz.

Paniza hace alusión a una jurisprudencia del 19 de septiembre del 2014 de la Sala Segunda de lo Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, bajo la ponencia del magistrado Luis Mario Carrasco.

En esta resolución se admite un incidente de nulidad presentado por la defensa técnica de un imputado al que el Ministerio Público investigó fuera del tiempo que establece la ley.

Igualmente, los magistrados de la Corte hicieron énfasis en el artículo 1950 del Código Judicial que establece la nulidad de los procesos cuando se incumplen algunas de las normativas establecidas en dicha ley, entre las que se encuentran los términos de investigación.