Penal Chamber of the SCJ rules on the principle of double jeopardy 

The Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) establishes the criterion of annulling the ruling when a remand court fails to comply with the mandate to review the appeal again with a different composition of judges than those who had previously participated in the ruling on the first appeal, due to violating due process of law. 

In his ruling No. SCJ-SS-24-0307, dated March 27 of the current year, the judges of the aforementioned Chamber ruled on a case annulled with remand, which was heard by two of the judges who had previously participated in the proceedings, in violation of the principle of double jeopardy established in article 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amended by law 10-15.  

Consequently, the judges of the Penal Chamber of the SCJ consider that the appeal in cassation must be declared well-founded and the proceedings remanded to the Court of Appeal of the Judicial Department of Puerto Plata, so that, with a different composition from the one that heard the appeal and rendered the challenged judgment, it may re-examine the appeal filed by Viatcheslav Karpetsky, which did not happen.  

In that sense, while it is true that the referral with the setting of a hearing was complied with, this was done in defiance of the mandate that said Appeal be heard by a panel of judges different from the previous one, since two of the judges who had heard the Appeal on a first occasion also heard the referral. 

The ruling explains that the foregoing causes a harmful impairment to due process, with regard to the cornerstone of every trial known as the impartiality of the judge and, consequently, violates the provisions contained in Article 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, amended by Law No. 10-15, concerning the composition of that jurisdiction in the case law provided for therein. 

To access the ruling issued by judges Francisco Antonio Jerez Mena, presiding; and members Nancy I. Salcedo Fernández, Fran Euclides Soto Sánchez, María G. Garabito Ramírez, and Francisco Antonio Ortega Polanco, here.