The Scope of Provincial Courts in Modifying Judgments of Investigating Courts

The Scope of Provincial Courts in Modifying Judgments of Investigating Courts

Legal Basis

Articles 790.2 and 790.3 of the Spanish Criminal Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, LECrim) establish that the appellate court may assess whether the lower court has violated procedural rules and guarantees and/or whether there was insufficient or irrational factual reasoning, a manifest departure from experience-based maxims, or an omission of reasoning regarding relevant evidence. However, the appellate court may not reassess the evidence unless it has been re-examined in the second instance. This will only occur if the evidence could not have been presented in the first instance, was unduly denied or admitted, or was not presented for reasons not attributable to the appellant. This principle has been extensively developed by the case law of the Supreme Court, which has defined the scope of appellate review.

Governing Principles in the Review of Judgments

Several key principles must be considered when reviewing a judgment:

  • The Principle of Immediacy ensures that the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence is presumed to be correct, as it is based on direct perception of the evidence. This prevents the appellate court from substituting that assessment unless the evidence has been reproduced with full guarantees in the second instance.
  • The Principle of Contradiction establishes that only evidence debated in the presence of all parties can serve as the basis for a conviction, thereby limiting the scope of appellate review.
  • The Principle of Orality reinforces the idea that direct contact with evidence in oral proceedings is essential for its proper evaluation, preventing appellate courts from modifying proven facts without new evidentiary proceedings.

Case Law

Regarding established doctrine, Constitutional Court Judgments STC 32/1995 and STC 123/1997 affirm that the right to the presumption of innocence requires that convictions be based on sufficient and valid evidence. They also highlight that the principle of immediacy limits the appellate court’s ability to modify evidentiary assessments made by the trial judge based on direct perception.

Supreme Court Judgment STS 459/2018 emphasizes that the appellate court cannot reassess evidence as if it were conducting a new trial. Its role is limited to verifying whether the evidentiary assessment in the first instance adhered to logical criteria and was properly reasoned. Furthermore, it underscores that an error in the assessment of evidence could violate the right to effective judicial protection.

Similarly, STS 667/2008 reiterates that Provincial Courts cannot modify the established facts based solely on documentary or hearsay evidence that was not examined in the second instance. This ruling underscores the need for evidence to be reproduced with full guarantees for it to be considered in the appeal.

Finally, STS 775/2024 highlights the importance of witness testimony being subject to immediacy and contradiction in oral proceedings for it to have full probative value. It also stresses that evidence must be assessed in the presence of the court issuing the judgment to ensure compliance with the principles of immediacy and contradiction.

Limits on the Intervention of Provincial Courts

With respect to the ability of the Provincial Court to modify the proven facts, the following limitations must be considered:

  1. Critical Review, Not Direct Reassessment: The appellate court does not have the role of reassessing evidence as if conducting a new trial. Its task is to critically review whether the first-instance assessment adhered to the rules of logic, experience-based maxims, and applicable law. This criterion was established by the Constitutional Court in STC 189/1998.
  2. Reasoned Justification for Modifications: As emphasized in Constitutional Court Judgment 17/2000, any modification of the proven facts must be duly justified, clearly and objectively stating the reasons for the change.
  3. Prohibition of Reformatio in Peius: The appellate court must respect the limits of the appeal and cannot aggravate the appellant’s situation to their detriment. This principle is confirmed by Article 795.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (LECrim) and the established case law of the Supreme Court, including STS 459/2018.

Conclusion

Provincial Courts play a crucial role in ensuring the right to effective judicial protection, but their ability to modify first-instance rulings is severely restricted. They may only intervene in cases of manifest errors in evidentiary assessment, provided such errors do not depend on the principle of immediacy. The case law of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court reinforces these principles to uphold legal certainty and correct errors without compromising the fundamental rights of defendants.

Ultimately, the role of the appellate court is not to retry the case but to verify that the evidentiary assessment in the first instance was conducted in accordance with constitutional and procedural principles. This strengthens legal certainty and prevents arbitrary reviews that could undermine effective judicial protection.