Keys to the reform of the Military Police Criminal Code and the New Criminal Procedure Code

This reform reconfigures the concept of crime of function, establishes aggravated sanctions for personnel linked to organized crime and establishes rules of jurisdictional competence in preference to military police jurisdiction, accompanied by a direct mechanism of definitive archiving for investigations in the ordinary way. Next, we analyze in detail the four central axes of this legislative reform. 1. Redefinition and extension of the "Crime of Function" in States of Emergency

The law modifies article II of the Preliminary Title of the Military Police Criminal Code (DL 1094), delimiting the behaviors qualified under this special figure. First, the crime of function is defined as any unlawful conduct (by action or omission) committed by a military officer in military actions or a police officer in a situation of activity, during the action of weapons, act of service, consequence of service or on the occasion of it, provided that it violates legal assets linked to the existence, organization, operation or functions of the Armed Forces or the PNP. It is also expressly provided that any unlawful conduct committed during military actions aimed at maintaining or restoring internal order and in the performance of other functions within the framework of a state of emergency is a crime of function. Finally, the crime of function includes any act committed in the fulfillment of its fundamental purpose and specific attributions (prevention, investigation of crime, identity control, intelligence, traffic control, personal and facility security, border control and criminal expertise) during a state of emergency. Technical note: The standard operationally assigns the acts executed in states of emergency under the mantle of the crime of function, transferring the assessment of the offense to the scope of the exclusive military police jurisdiction when the required institutional elements are present. 2. Inclusion of severe sanctions for collaboration with organized crime

By amending article 65 of the Military Police Criminal Code, the law drastically tightens the penalties for members of the Armed Forces and the National Police who engage in acts of criminal collusion:

Instruction, provision of war materiel or collaboration with unauthorized armed groups, gangs or criminal organizations taking advantage of the function implies will be a penalty applicable between 20 to 30 years of imprisonment. Collaboration that results in the death of a person (as author, mediated author, co-author, instigator or accomplice) taking advantage of the function will imply the imposition of Perpetual Chain. 3. Prevalence of Military Police Jurisdiction and prohibition of double jeopardy

In the field of criminal procedure, the regulation modifies the Preliminary Title (Art. III) and article 26 of the New Criminal Procedure Code (DL 957):

ü  It is established the absolute prohibition to process, in any case, simultaneous criminal proceedings in the ordinary and military police jurisdiction against a military or police officer when the facts and subjects are the same. ü  It is ratified that criminal law has pre-eminence over administrative law. ü  When resolving disputes or issues of jurisdiction between the ordinary and military jurisdictions, the Supreme Court shall prefer military-police jurisdiction in the case of crimes committed by active personnel in the performance of their duties, acts of service or states of emergency that affect institutional legal assets. 4. The Final Supplementary Provision

The aspect of greatest immediate procedural impact resides in the Single Final Supplementary Provision, which establishes a procedure regarding procedural conclusion for cases pending in the ordinary course:

Applies at the request of a party or at the request of the competent military police judge in procedural cases where there is no final or consented judgment. The ordinary criminal judge requests information from the military court to verify the existence of the process for the same facts and subjects. Once the coincidence has been verified, the ordinary judge must order the final file within a maximum period of 30 business days. The archiving order is issued without the need for a prior hearing and by means of an uncontested decision. 5. Immediate legal effects:

To annul any conviction that does not have the status of res judicata. Automatic cancellation of police, criminal and judicial records. Immediately lift any measure of personal or actual coercion. Leave without effect the payment of civil reparations fixed in the ordinary way not firm.