Nemo tenetur se detegere: e a não tipificação do crime de obstrução à justiça
Carregando...
Data
2022-12-10
Tipo de documento
Artigo Científico
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Área do conhecimento
Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
Modalidade de acesso
Acesso aberto
Editora
Autores
Horstmann Nieto, Mathias Hugo
Santos, Nayla Gabrielle dos
Orientador
Heuer, Daisy Cristine Neitzke
Coorientador
Resumo
Pesquisa-se, neste artigo científico, sobre o escopo atual da aplicação do princípio da não autoincriminação perante conduta comissiva, sendo esta livrar-se de aparelhos celulares perante iminente apreensão destes pela polícia, em caso criminal específico. Sendo o suspeito acusado de cometer o crime tipificado na Lei nº 12.850/2013, art. 2, §1, se estuda a amplitude dada às condutas consideradas crime ante os tribunais, baseados nesta previsão legal, se atentam contra o princípio da
não autoincriminação prevista implicitamente na Constituição Federal de 1988 como garantia fundamental, sendo temática de importante notoriedade jurídica. Derivando-se da hipótese de tratar-se
de uma ameaça à Carta Constitucional, busca-se, como objetivo geral, perquirir a atuação do Estado
no sistema acusatório penal, discutir-se-á a não tipificação de crime de obstrução à justiça quando
perante iminente apreensão de celular, o suspeito se desfaz do mesmo, baseando-se em avaliar se foi
respeitado ou se não é aplicável o princípio da não autoincriminação. Como objetivos específicos
buscar-se-á demonstrar a importância dos princípios para que sejam respeitadas com
proporcionalidade as garantias fundamentais, como meio de premissa básica ao processo penal; o
direito de não autoincriminação do suspeito que acaba sendo acusado por cometer obstrução à justiça
ao livrar-se de celulares; anuir o princípio nemo tenetur se detegere como garantia fundamental
individual, cuja aplicabilidade quando suprimida, ofende à carta Magna; relacionar com um caso
específico em que se mostra suprimido o princípio; mensurar a construção jurisprudencial nacional e
internacional; e averiguar como se aplica ao caso do condenado ao crime tipificado na Lei 12.850/2013,
art. 2, § 1º, posto que afronta com o princípio fundamental, constitucionalmente garantido ao acusado.
Este trará uma análise da instrumentalidade do princípio nos tribunais superiores brasileiros,
especialmente focado na maleabilidade em que é aplicado o crime de obstrução à justiça, sobretudo
focado na hipótese de destruição de celular perante iminente apreensão, para ao final, verificar se foi
razoável e plausível a limitação à amplitude dada ao princípio na jurisprudência, averiguando assim, o
respeito à garantia fundamental. Para tanto, utilizará do método indutivo, investigativo, bibliográfico, e
de metodologia qualitativa, averiguando-se ao final, que da conduta do agente no caso criminal
específico, somada à gritantes evidências que corroboram com a denúncia, e pareada coexistência de
distintos bens tutelados constitucionalmente, o princípio foi, neste caso específico, mitigado de maneira
proporcional.
This research paper is carried out on the current scope of application of the principle of non-selfincrimination in the face of commissive conduct, this conduct being getting rid of cell phones in the face of their imminent seizure by the police, in a specific criminal case. Being the suspect accused of committing the crime typified in Law nº 12.850/2013, art. 2, §1, the research studies the scope given to conducts considered a crime before the courts, based on this legal provision, if they violate the principle of non-self-incrimination implicitly provided for in the Federal Constitution of 1988 as a fundamental guarantee, being a subject of important legal notoriety. Deriving from the hypothesis that it is a threat to the Constitutional Charter, the general objective is to investigate the role of the State in the criminal prosecution system, it will be discussed the non-typification of the crime of obstruction of justice when, a suspect faced with imminent seizure of the cell phone disposes of it, based on assessing whether the principle of non-self-incrimination has been respected or not applicable in such case scenario. For specific objectives, it will be sought to demonstrate the importance of the principles so that the fundamental guarantees are respected with proportionality, as a means of basic premise to the criminal process; the right of non-self-incrimination of the suspect who ends up being accused of committing obstruction of justice by disposing of cell phones; to support the principle nemo tenetur se detegere as a fundamental individual guarantee, whose applicability, when suppressed, offends the Constitution; relate to a specific case in which the principle is suppressed; measuring the construction of national and international jurisprudence; and find out how it applies to the case of the person convicted of the crime typified in Law 12.850/2013, art. 2, § 1, since it affronts the fundamental principle, constitutionally guaranteed to the accused. This research paper will bring an analysis of the instrumentality of the principle in the Brazilian superior courts, especially focused on the malleability in which the crime of obstruction of justice is applied, mainly focused on the hypothesis of cell phone destruction in the face of imminent seizure, in order to by the end, verify if the limitation to the amplitude given to the principle in the jurisprudence was reasonable and plausible, thus verifying the respect for the fundamental guarantee. To do so, it will use the inductive, investigative, bibliographical, and qualitative method, finding out at the end, that the accused’s conduct in the specific criminal case, added to the glaring evidence that corroborates the complaint, and paired coexistence of different protected assets constitutionally, the principle was, in this specific case, mitigated proportionately.
This research paper is carried out on the current scope of application of the principle of non-selfincrimination in the face of commissive conduct, this conduct being getting rid of cell phones in the face of their imminent seizure by the police, in a specific criminal case. Being the suspect accused of committing the crime typified in Law nº 12.850/2013, art. 2, §1, the research studies the scope given to conducts considered a crime before the courts, based on this legal provision, if they violate the principle of non-self-incrimination implicitly provided for in the Federal Constitution of 1988 as a fundamental guarantee, being a subject of important legal notoriety. Deriving from the hypothesis that it is a threat to the Constitutional Charter, the general objective is to investigate the role of the State in the criminal prosecution system, it will be discussed the non-typification of the crime of obstruction of justice when, a suspect faced with imminent seizure of the cell phone disposes of it, based on assessing whether the principle of non-self-incrimination has been respected or not applicable in such case scenario. For specific objectives, it will be sought to demonstrate the importance of the principles so that the fundamental guarantees are respected with proportionality, as a means of basic premise to the criminal process; the right of non-self-incrimination of the suspect who ends up being accused of committing obstruction of justice by disposing of cell phones; to support the principle nemo tenetur se detegere as a fundamental individual guarantee, whose applicability, when suppressed, offends the Constitution; relate to a specific case in which the principle is suppressed; measuring the construction of national and international jurisprudence; and find out how it applies to the case of the person convicted of the crime typified in Law 12.850/2013, art. 2, § 1, since it affronts the fundamental principle, constitutionally guaranteed to the accused. This research paper will bring an analysis of the instrumentality of the principle in the Brazilian superior courts, especially focused on the malleability in which the crime of obstruction of justice is applied, mainly focused on the hypothesis of cell phone destruction in the face of imminent seizure, in order to by the end, verify if the limitation to the amplitude given to the principle in the jurisprudence was reasonable and plausible, thus verifying the respect for the fundamental guarantee. To do so, it will use the inductive, investigative, bibliographical, and qualitative method, finding out at the end, that the accused’s conduct in the specific criminal case, added to the glaring evidence that corroborates the complaint, and paired coexistence of different protected assets constitutionally, the principle was, in this specific case, mitigated proportionately.
Palavras-chave
Crime de obstrução à justiça, destruição de celular, jurisprudência, processo penal -, princípio nemo tenetur se detegere