Defendant is released with an ankle bracelet and asks to stay in prison – 10/03/2023 – Frederico Vasconcelos

The Sixth Panel of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) judges this Tuesday (3) an appeal by defendant Abraão Francisco da Silva, one of those accused of murdering councilor Luiz Cavalcante dos Passos, in Igarassu (PE). The crime occurred on May 16, 2018.

Minister Laurita Vaz, rapporteur, recognized the excessive period of preventive detention and ordered his release with the application of other precautions, such as an electronic ankle bracelet.

The defense claimed that constant monitoring of Abraão’s location could allow the death threats that the defendant has been receiving to be carried out. He asked for the precautionary measure to be replaced, or for the release to be revoked, because the defendant felt “safer within the penitentiary system”.

Given the fear, reported by the defense, of possible revenge, Laurita Vaz revoked the defendant’s release.

Even without the defense clarifying how this monitoring information would be exposed, the minister decided that “the right to [o réu] remain in a place that feels safe and that does not pose a risk to society during this procedural moment”.

Double punishment alleged

Next Tuesday (10), the Panel will judge the appeal of co-defendant Cleydson Henrique Morais Monteiro. He was denounced along with Edvaldo Alves da Silva and Abraão Francisco da Silva.

According to the complaint, the co-defendants “confessed to committing the crime, revealing that the weapon and vehicle used in the murder were supplied by Cleydson, who ordered the crime.”

In the appeal, lawyer Rodrigo Gonçalves Trindade says that it is a “concessive decision of habeas corpus, but with a bad touch for the defendant”.

He cited precedents from the Federal Supreme Court annulling STJ decisions when there is an encumbrance in the granting of habeas corpus.

Trindade notes that the minister acknowledged that her client has been imprisoned “for almost four years, with no evidence of guilt, and there is no date for him to be submitted to trial by the Jury Court.”

Cleydson would be punished twice “due to the negligence of the Pernambuco justice system”, says Trindade.

The lawyer argues that, “if preventive detention, a precautionary measure, was recognized by the judge as manifestly illegal, it is an abuse to be punished twice without guilt being established.”

The lawyer stated in the appeal: “If the aggravating factor, it is difficult to say, is murdered, the historical record of this homicide has been made, and it is up to Your Excellency to decide.”

The Federal Public Ministry had decided to reject the request.

After a procedural hearing on the original files, it was determined that separate procedural files should be created, since the defendant was on the run. Cleydson was arrested in October 2019.

When determining the imposition of the ankle bracelet, the minister considered the alternatives provided for in the Penal Code, “given the special gravity of the conduct and dangerousness” of the accused.

State bankruptcy

The lawyer cites another episode that occurred in Pernambuco.

Last April, Laurita Vaz granted an injunction to determine the release of Gilliarde Henrique da Silva. The minister found that the defendant had been imprisoned, without being guilty, since October 26, 2015.

“Thus, having verified, in a perfunctory court, that the excessive prolongation of procedural detention is a result of state inertia, I conclude that the illegal constraint suffered by the Patient is evident, in light of the principle of reasonable duration of the process”, the minister recorded.

She imposed electronic monitoring among the precautions.

On May 5, 2023, the defendant appeared at the court of origin, in São Lourenço da Mata, to sign the term of commitment. On leaving the forum, when he was about to put on his ankle bracelets, he was murdered alongside his wife.

Regarding the case of co-defendant Abraão, Trindade says he has never seen “a defendant benefit from habeas corpus and ask to remain in prison.”

“It is a serious mistake and a distortion of habeas corpus for a judge to grant it, but, at the request of the defendant himself, keep him in prison. It is true state bankruptcy. At the very least, those who did this lacked sensitivity”, concludes Trindade .

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.