Da responsabilidade do Estado quanto ao erro judiciário na sentença penal absolutória
Data
2008-05-30
Autores
Barbosa, André Luis Jardini [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O presente trabalho tem por objetivo discutir os motivos pelos quais o Estado deve arcar com os prejuízos causados pelo erro judiciário na sentença penal absolutória, já que, a depender da fundamentação dessa decisão judicial, a vítima ficará impossibilitada de pleitear do próprio agente do crime o ressarcimento dos danos causados pelo fato criminoso. Argumenta-se que, se por um lado o processo é instrumento de consecução e aplicação da justiça, não se pode olvidar que a solução dos conflitos intersubjetivos de interesses foram entregues a órgãos integrantes do Estado, personificados nos juízes. Desse modo, a decisão acerca do mérito do processo reside na convicção do julgador. Entretanto, ao contrário do que se pensava, esta não é formada simplesmente por aspectos próprios da pessoa do julgador, mas deriva do somatório das condutas verificadas no decorrer do processo, seja por atividade instrutória própria do juiz, seja pela intervenção das partes da relação jurídica processual. Por isso se afirma que não deve o julgador, jamais, se afastar dos elementos de convicção contidos nos autos. Essa afirmação se justifica, na medida em que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro adotou a regra do livre convencimento motivado. De fato, existe um princípio implícito na relação jurídica processual, consistente num dever de conduta ética das partes. Contudo, e a despeito da existência do citado princípio, é plenamente possível que as partes venham a se utilizar de condutas que induzam o magistrado a erro, levando, inclusive, à absolvição do réu, quando, no caso, a condenação se impunha. Desse modo, a depender do fundamento da absolvição, nem mesmo poderá ser proposta a ação de reparação civil pelo fato criminoso, restando a vítima, assim, sensivelmente prejudicada. Como o...
This paper is due to discuss why State should assume the responsibility for the losses caused by a false judgment that led to an acquittal, since, depending on the motivation of the sentence, the victim could be unable to suit the criminal for the reparable injuries related to the crime. It is pleaded that, although a law suit is an instrument used to pursue justice, it must not be forgotten that the pacification of the conflicts of interest were ceded to state officers, the judges. So, the decision on the merits lies on the beliefs of the judge. However, in spite of what was considered true, these beliefs are not composed only by personal aspects regarding to the judge, but they arise from a sum of conducts that occur during the proceedings, by the diligence of the judge or by the activity of the parties. That is why it is said that the judge should never disregard the indicia produced during a lawsuit: because, in Brazil, the rule called “free but justified persuasion” is valid. In fact, there is an unwritten principle that guides the relation between the parties – the obligation to behave ethically. However, and despite the existence of the aforementioned principle, it is absolutely possible that the parties behave in such a way that leads the judge to a mistake, which can even cause an erroneous acquittal. In this case, depending on the motivation of the sentence, the reparation suit would not even be possible. The victim would bare, therefore, his losses. As the law in vigor does not bring a solution to this problem, the present paper analyzes a way to guarantee to the victim the right to a reparation lawsuit – otherwise, he would suffer two injuries: the crime itself and the conduct of the parties that guided the judge to an erroneous acquittal.
This paper is due to discuss why State should assume the responsibility for the losses caused by a false judgment that led to an acquittal, since, depending on the motivation of the sentence, the victim could be unable to suit the criminal for the reparable injuries related to the crime. It is pleaded that, although a law suit is an instrument used to pursue justice, it must not be forgotten that the pacification of the conflicts of interest were ceded to state officers, the judges. So, the decision on the merits lies on the beliefs of the judge. However, in spite of what was considered true, these beliefs are not composed only by personal aspects regarding to the judge, but they arise from a sum of conducts that occur during the proceedings, by the diligence of the judge or by the activity of the parties. That is why it is said that the judge should never disregard the indicia produced during a lawsuit: because, in Brazil, the rule called “free but justified persuasion” is valid. In fact, there is an unwritten principle that guides the relation between the parties – the obligation to behave ethically. However, and despite the existence of the aforementioned principle, it is absolutely possible that the parties behave in such a way that leads the judge to a mistake, which can even cause an erroneous acquittal. In this case, depending on the motivation of the sentence, the reparation suit would not even be possible. The victim would bare, therefore, his losses. As the law in vigor does not bring a solution to this problem, the present paper analyzes a way to guarantee to the victim the right to a reparation lawsuit – otherwise, he would suffer two injuries: the crime itself and the conduct of the parties that guided the judge to an erroneous acquittal.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito civil - Responsabilidade do Estado, Sentenças (Processo civil), Direito processual - Indenização - Estado, Erro judiciário, Responsabilidade civil do Estado, Ação civil ex delicto, Elementos de convicção do julgador, Efeitos civis da setença penal absolutória, State obligation to repair damages caused by its officers, Reparation law suit originated from a crime, Elements of the conviction of the judge, Civil effects of the acquittal
Como citar
BARBOSA, André Luis Jardini. Da responsabilidade do Estado quanto ao erro judiciário na sentença penal absolutória. 2008. 108 f. Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual Paulista, Faculdade de História, Direito e Serviço Social, 2008.