In order for the lineup to operate as authentic

shetu24

Evidence of the accusation capable of weakening the presumption of innocence of the accused, the essential requirement is that the identification be ratified in the act of the oral trial by the witness . This is because only in this way can the identification be subjected to authentic contradiction or interrogation between the parties, that is, the lawyers for the defense and the prosecution and the Public Prosecutor's Office will be able to ask the appropriate questions to the witness about this procedure in the presence of the Judge or Magistrate in charge of evaluating the evidence. Even when the recognition procedures have been carried out with irregularities, it is possible for the witness to identify the alleged perpetrator during the trial itself. In this sense, STS no. 108/2023, of February 16, states: “the Constitutional Court has considered as sufficient evidence to undermine the presumption of innocence, the recognition made in the oral trial, without any doubt, by the witness, despite the irregularities in the photographic examinations, or even in previous lineup examinations .

This Chamber has declared inf February 5, that " when the witness unequivocally points out a person during the plenary session, its probative force lies in the credibility or reliability of the testimony of the person who makes the identification." In any case, the assessment of the convincing force of the identification made by the witness always corresponds to the judicial authority in charge of the prosecution.Now, if skill prevails DM Databases over force , because it is barely perceptible, jurisprudence has leaned towards theft. Only violence preordained to disempowerment , instrumentally conceived to disempower the victim , can have typical relevance to classify the facts as constituting a crime of robbery. Neither simple physical contact, nor even the skillful and strategic embrace that allows the author of the disempowerment to momentarily surround the victim to reach the intended object, can be considered, by themselves, violence with typical relevance. The wording of art. 237 of the CP recalls that violence must be "used" for disempowerment.



The functional meaning of violence as an instrument materially aimed at dispossession is thus reinforced. It is perfectly imaginable that there are cases in which a hug, used as an executive means to disempower the victim, will not necessarily imply the classification of the facts as constituting the crime of robbery. The hug can serve as an instrument to escape neglect. When the hug, lavished insistently, forces the victim to use force to free himself from the person who is surrounding and girding him at that moment, violence as a means of execution becomes evident. It is logical that the use of the “hug method” can be classified as minor violence, since it does not imply a serious attack on the physical integrity or freedom of the person. Conclusion Depending on the circumstances of each case, it will be assessed whether or not the “hug method” fits into the “violence” typical of the crime of robbery. If the surprise hug implies a mere situation of discomfort or perplexity for the victim, who does not present any opposition or physical force and, taking advantage of this confusion, property is stolen, it is understood that there would be no violence typical of the crime of robbery.