In a criminal case, a person can participate in the case in many ways such as being both the accused and the victim, both the accused and the person with related rights and obligations, etc. When investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating a case, it is necessary to ensure the rights and obligations of the participants in the proceedings.
Image for illustration purposes only (Internet source)
Pursuant to Article 117 of the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code on merging or separating cases for investigation and the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code (effective from January 1, 2018), it is found that the separation or entering a case for investigation all have the same purpose: to solve the case promptly, comprehensively, with the right person, with the right crime, and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Clause 2, Article 117 of the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code and Clause 2, Article 170 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code on separating cases for investigation do not specify which cases cannot be separated, but only stipulate The investigating authority may separate the case only in cases where it is absolutely necessary, “when it is not possible to complete the investigation for all crimes early” (a necessary condition) and only when “the separation does not affect the to determine the objective and comprehensive truth of the case” (sufficient conditions). Thus, during the investigation, the investigating agency can only separate the case when both of the above conditions are satisfied.
Realizing that, according to the content of the case, the criminal acts of the accused took place in continuous space and time (the defendants committed crimes continuously in a short period of time; the crime place was at the same district), the causes and consequences of criminal acts are linked in series of acts; investigative competence belongs to the investigating authority of district V (not related to the investigating authority of another district investigation agency);… in particular, B committed the crime because of the act immediately before B was slashed by L (B was mistaken by B) M is L). In this case, M was present when the incident happened from beginning to end and when B committed a crime against M, the place of the crime was also at Mr. S’s house.
Therefore, in order to consider the circumstances and conditions leading to B’s commission of a crime against M is that B was injured by L before, and B mistakenly thought that M was L, so he slashed M. Therefore, for L’s offense against B, B is determined as the victim; and for act B causing injury to M, B as the accused. The investigation of case B participating in the proceedings as both the victim and the accused does not affect the determination of the objective truth and at the same time ensures that the settlement of the case ensures the integrity of the case. overview; does not infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of the accused, but on the contrary, conducting investigation and settlement in the same case is even more beneficial when considering the criminal circumstances for B.
The investigation, prosecution and trial of the accused in a case, in addition to not contravening the provisions of current law (including civil law and criminal law), also aims to ensure the resolution of the case. resolve the case in a simple way (avoiding unnecessary complexity), ensuring the most comprehensive, timely and appropriate. On the contrary, if the case is separated for settlement, it will not ensure objectivity, comprehensiveness, unnecessaryness and violate Clause 2, Article 117 of the current Criminal Procedure Code.
In this case, even if the civil settlement in a criminal case has not been reached an agreement, it is not necessary to separate the case for settlement in two independent cases, but only to prosecute the criminal case. The crime of intentionally causing injury occurred in commune, district V, province P for investigation according to regulations. The investigation, prosecution and trial shall not be infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the accused as well as other participants in the proceedings.
Therefore, I agree with the second opinion that there is no need to separate the case, but only need to handle it together in one case for all three defendants L, V and B.
Source: According to kiemsat.vn
For support and advice on Business, Intellectual Property, Litigation, etc. in the best way, please contact us with the following information:
DHP
Law Firm Address: L4-09.OT06 Landmark 4 Building Vinhomes Central Park, 720A Dien Bien Phu, Ward 22, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City
Hotline: 0986.938.627
Zalo, Viber, Line: 0986.938.627
Facebook: facebook .com/DHPLAW
