dc.contributor | Peña Mendoza, Luis Fernando | |
dc.creator | Flores Quispe, Rosa Clotilde | |
dc.date | 2021-06-21T20:04:05Z | |
dc.date | 2021-06-21T20:04:05Z | |
dc.date | 2021-06-21T20:04:05Z | |
dc.date | 2021-06-21T20:04:05Z | |
dc.date | 2020-07-08 | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-05-16T00:25:51Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-05-16T00:25:51Z | |
dc.identifier | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12557/3906 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/9456429 | |
dc.description | La presente investigación busca exponer la problemática que trae consigo la aplicación
del inciso 3 del artículo 59 del Código Penal peruano, debido a que se refiere al incumplimiento
del pago de la reparación civil (regla de conducta establecido en el inciso 4 del artículo 58 del
Código Penal) por parte del condenado que le fue impuesta la suspensión de la ejecución de la
pena. Sin embargo, al incumplir dicha regla de conducta corre el riesgo de ser revocada por el
de pena efectiva, aplicando el artículo 59 inciso 3 del Código Penal, es decir se restringiría la
libertad personal solo por el incumplido de la reparación civil. En relación al pago de la
reparación civil, se estaría vulnerando al derecho de la libertad consagrada en el numeral 24
inciso c del artículo 2 de la Constitución Política del Estado, que claramente proscribe que por
deudas no hay prisión, señalando excepcional y únicamente prisión ante el incumplimiento de
deberes de carácter alimentario.
Asimismo, es necesario aplicar el Test o Principio de Proporcionalidad, ya
que la medida impuesta en el artículo 59 inciso 3 del Código Penal al incumplir el pago de la
reparación civil., no resultaría idónea, ni necesaria, ni mucho menos proporcional, pues
revocar la suspensión de la ejecución de la pena no generará necesariamente que el condenado
cumpla en cancelar la reparación civil, ni logrará satisfacer el legítimo interés de la parte civil
de tener por indemnizados los daños causados; entonces, la medida legislativa tampoco sería
necesaria, porque la victima cuenta con otros mecanismos legales suficientes previstos para la
cobranza de la reparación civil, sin imponerse una medida tan gravosa contra el condenado
como es la pérdida de su libertad personal. Este dispositivo legal tampoco sería proporcional,
pues entre el legítimo derecho de la víctima al cobro de la reparación civil, el que incide en su
derecho constitucional a la tutela jurisdiccional efectiva, y la libertad personal del condenado,
consideramos que la libertad personal debe tener mayor peso y abrirse paso en esa colisión de derechos constitucionales, no guardando proporcionalidad el fin perseguido con la medida
utilizada.
La aplicación de dicha norma en controversia, acarrearía consecuencias referente a la
sobrepoblación en los centros penitenciarios al efectivizar pena de libertad para delitos tan
recurrentes que contemplan penas de corta duración, asimismo en la actualidad nos
encontramos en una crisis mundial sanitaria, económica, y moral debido a la pandemia del
COVID 19 “Coronavirus” que azota en gran magnitud a nuestro país y diferentes
departamentos, por lo que el Estado busca reducir los centros penitenciarios a fin de que no
haya aglomeración de más internos y no se convierta en foco infeccioso.
Entonces resulta claro que la modificación e incorporación de un párrafo en el artículo
59 inciso 3 del Código Penal en relación al no pago de la reparación civil, porque contraviene
una norma de rango constitucional. Y dicha modificación fortalecerá la tutela de la Libertad
Personal que es un derecho fundamental, siendo siempre resguardada por todo órgano
jurisdiccional., el respeto de los principios constitucionales y los fines que tiene la pena,
también coadyuvara la disminución del hacimiento penitenciario. | |
dc.description | The present investigation seeks to expose the problems arising from the application of
article 59, paragraph 3, of the Peruvian Criminal Code, because it refers to the non-payment of
civil reparation (rule of conduct laid down in article 58, paragraph 4, of the Criminal Code) by
the convicted person who was ordered to suspend the execution of the sentence. However, by
failing to comply with this rule of conduct, it runs the risk of being revoked by the effective
penalty, applying article 59, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code, that is, personal liberty would
be restricted only for failure to provide civil compensation. With regard to the payment of civil
reparation, the right to freedom enshrined in article 2, paragraph 24, c, of the Constitution,
which clearly prohibits imprisonment for debt, is being violated, In the event of failure to
perform duties of a nutritional nature, the Court of First Instance ordered an exceptional and
only prison sentence.
It is also necessary to apply the Test or Principle of Proportionality, since the measure
imposed in article 59, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code when it fails to pay civil
compensation. it would not be appropriate, necessary or even proportional, because revoking
the suspension of the execution of the sentence will not necessarily result in the convicted
person performing the civil reparation, nor will it be able to satisfy the legitimate interest of
the plaintiff to be compensated for the damage caused; therefore, the legislative measure would
not be necessary either, because the victim has sufficient other legal mechanisms provided for
the collection of civil reparation, without imposing such a burdensome measure on the
convicted person as the loss of his personal liberty. Nor does this legal device
It is also necessary to apply the Test or Principle of Proportionality, since the measure
imposed in article 59, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code when it fails to pay civil
compensation. it would not be appropriate, necessary or even proportional, because revoking the suspension of the execution of the sentence will not necessarily result in the convicted
person performing the civil reparation, nor will it be able to satisfy the legitimate interest of
the plaintiff to be compensated for the damage caused; therefore, the legislative measure would
not be necessary either, because the victim has sufficient other legal mechanisms provided for
the collection of civil reparation, without imposing such a burdensome measure on the
convicted person as the loss of his personal liberty. Nor would this legal mechanism be
proportional, since between the legitimate right of the victim to civil reparation, which affects
his constitutional right to effective judicial protection, and the personal freedom of the
convicted person, We believe that personal freedom must be given greater weight and must
make its way through this collision of constitutional rights, without proportionality to the aim
pursued by the measure used.
The application of this rule in dispute would have consequences in terms of
overcrowding in prisons by imposing a custodial sentence for such recurring crimes that
provide for short-term sentences, we are also currently in a global health, economic, and moral
crisis due to the COVID 19 “Coronavirus“ pandemic that hits our country and different
departments on a large scale, The State is therefore seeking to reduce the number of prisons so
that there is no crowding of more inmates and it does not become an infectious source.
It is therefore clear that the amendment and incorporation of a paragraph in article 59,
paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code concerning the non-payment of civil reparation, because it
contravenes a rule of constitutional status. This amendment will strengthen the protection of
personal freedom, which is a fundamental right, and will always be safeguarded by any court,
respect for constitutional principles and the purpose of the sentence, will also contribute to
reducing prison overcrowding. | |
dc.description | Tesis | |
dc.format | application/pdf | |
dc.language | spa | |
dc.publisher | Universidad Andina del Cusco | |
dc.publisher | PE | |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.rights | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/pe/ | |
dc.source | Universidad Andina del Cusco | |
dc.source | Repositorio Institucional UAC | |
dc.subject | Pena de libertad suspendida | |
dc.subject | Libertad personal | |
dc.subject | Prisión por deudas | |
dc.subject | Conducta del sentenciado | |
dc.subject | https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.02 | |
dc.title | La inconstitucionalidad del Inciso 3 Artículo 59 del Código Penal Peruano, por vulneración del derecho a la libertad personal | |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis | |