A case that will give a lot of talk in the near future and that may establish jurisprudence on the falsification of the national identity document. In this case, the Supreme Court has acquitted an official who falsified a DNI allowing the photo to be changed to that of another person so that the latter could take the selectivity exam.
In this case, we echo Sentence 920/2023, issued by the Supreme Court on December 14, which reviews whether the accusatory principle is violated due to recklessness. Specifically, it reviews a crime of document falsification in which three people in total are involved.
Appear for selectivity for another person
Specifically, we have two people, who we will call A and B. One of them wants to take the selectivity exam for the other. To make this possible, they conspire with a public official to alter B’s DNI photo with A’s photo so that A can take the selectivity exam instead of B.
At first, the prosecution maintained that the official was aware of the change in the photo and collaborated in the fraud, while the defense explained that she had been the victim of a deception and ended up acting by mistake. The court of first instance, after hearing the parties, convicted the official of reckless falsification of an official document.
He considered that, with a minimum of care in his work, he could have detected irregularities in the photograph provided by those involved. As is usual, the defense decided to appeal the decision, alleging “alleging violation of the accusatory principle and the right of defense” since the reckless accusation was not part of the original case.
However, the Provincial Court rejected the appeal, justifying it on the grounds that the defense had introduced the error as an object of debate, so the impudent conviction made all the sense in the world. The official insisted on her innocence by filing an appeal for violation of the accusatory principle and the right of defense.
Finally, the Supreme Court, in its ruling of December 14, 2023, has decided to acquit the official, highlighting the importance of the accusatory principle and the right of defense in the legal process. In the sentence they explain that the accusation focused on the agreement between the official with A and B, and did not take into account the possibility of reckless action.
Therefore, it maintains the argument that the official was deceived and determines that the prosecution’s story was not sufficient for an accusation of recklessness. Therefore, they understand that the official was not able to defend herself adequately.
