Solicitud de Homologación Penal en Caracas
Cargado por
Alejandro RodriguezTemas abordados
- Interés de la Justicia,
- Desarrollo Procesal,
- Proceso Penal,
- Requerimiento Judicial,
- Rol del Abogado,
- Enriquecimiento Sin Causa,
- Interés de la Víctima,
- Tribunal,
- Defensa Privada,
- Acuerdo Reparatorio
Solicitud de Homologación Penal en Caracas
Cargado por
Alejandro RodriguezTemas abordados
- Interés de la Justicia,
- Desarrollo Procesal,
- Proceso Penal,
- Requerimiento Judicial,
- Rol del Abogado,
- Enriquecimiento Sin Causa,
- Interés de la Víctima,
- Tribunal,
- Defensa Privada,
- Acuerdo Reparatorio
Common questions
Con tecnología de IAThe defense highlights that Henriques completed all payments, with the victim, Lady Katerine Sanchez Morales, acknowledging total receipt of the debt and an extra payment in a fiscal act. The repeated absence of the victim at court hearings is portrayed as bad faith and contributes to procedural delays. The defense references the decision-making inertia of the court as detrimental to fairness, outlining the constitutional violations that arise from judicial inaction and the lapse of eight years without resolution .
The defense argues that the victim's consistent failure to attend the scheduled hearings for the Homologación del Acuerdo Reparatorio, despite being duly notified, constitutes bad faith, thus justifying a request for the case dismissal based on the grounds of excessive delay and non-compliance by the victim. The payment was acknowledged by the fiscal authority and confirmed by the victim in the fiscal review, yet her inaction suggests an attempted enrichment without cause .
The defense proposes that, given the victim's recurrent non-appearance, the court should proceed with the legal dismissal of the case due to procedural bad faith. They also suggest summoning the victim and legal counsel via notification to encourage participation, thereby facilitating the homologation of the reconciliation agreement acknowledged at the fiscal level .
The defense asserts that the victim's failure to attend hearings constitutes procedural bad faith, preventing case closure and creating an undue enrichment scenario by not returning excess payments despite acknowledging full settlement. This behavior is positioned as exploiting system inefficiencies and causing undue burden on the defense and judicial process .
The defense interprets the victim's continuous absence as a strategic maneuver of bad faith, seeking undue enrichment and exploiting procedural loopholes to delay legal closure. This non-compliance contradicts the previously acknowledged fiscal settlement, suggesting a willful avoidance to fulfill legal and ethical obligations, necessitating court intervention to prevent further injustice .
The defense seeks a pronouncement from the court to archive the case, thus enacting a procedural dismissal due to the victim's repeated absence and lack of participation without just cause, coupled with the full settlement already acknowledged in fiscal proceedings .
The defense cites decisions from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that judicial inaction or extensive delays constitute a violation of constitutional rights by creating tangible harm to involved parties. The principles underscore that justice delay implies infractions against procedural guarantees, necessitating prompt court pronouncement to provide fair proceedings .
The defense argues that the homologation is fitting because the reconciliation agreement was already validated and accepted at the fiscal level by the victim, who acknowledged complete payment. The procedural default by the victim should not hinder the legal finalization of the matter, as all conditions for their closure favor the defense and are devoid of any contrary legal objections .
The defense warns that continued judicial delay could lead to an entrenched sense of injustice and procedural inefficiency, fostering legal cynicism and undermining the integrity of judicial proceedings. Such delays contradict constitutional assurances of timely justice and can stall rightful legal closures, resulting in prolonged financial and psychological liabilities for the defendant .
The defense underscores that the protracted delay to deliver a court decision violates the right to timely justice as emphasized in Supreme Court rulings. This inaction by the judiciary goes against the expected conduct and constitutional mandates for prompt justice delivery, thus harming all involved parties by perpetuating uncertainty and legal limbo .
