In this regard, the According Plenary 1-2023/CIJ-11210 indicated on the legal bases 32 and 37 in the case of an attempted crime, with the concurrence of specific aggravating circumstances and of the aggravating circumstance qualified recidivism, should be decreased one-half (1/2) of the minimum and maximum of the space of criminality generated with the effectiveness of this aggravating circumstance qualified (2/3 according to article 46-B), third subparagraph of the CP). However, in the case sub iudice you must also take into account the configuration of the causal increase in criminality than one-third (1/3) regulated in article 49 of the Criminal Code of the plurality of people are injured.

The causal increase in criminality of the continuing offence is regulated in article 49 of the Penal Code. What makes it possible for the judge to increase the sentence conminada for the crime in one-third (1/3) when multiple violations of the same penal law had been committed in the time of the action or in moments diverse as an expression of the same resolution and criminal disservice to a plurality of persons.

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC

ROOM CRIMINAL TRANSIENT

RESOURCE OF INVALIDITY N.° 165-2024 LIMA YOURR

SUMILLA: 1. The foundation 32 According Plenary 1 - 2023/CIJ-112, November 28, 2023 specifies that in cases of crimes that have specific aggravating circumstances apply to the scheme operating step. In addition, it also establishes that in cases complicated by concurrence of circumstances aggravating qualified, the judge will first need to establish the new framework punitive damages that generates the aggravating qualified in the case sub iudice is recidivism. Then, you must apply this framework punitive damages resulting effectiveness of the concurrence of the causes of decline in criminality for the attempt. And, finally, you must apply the scheme operating staggered to determine the worth particular attention to the value of each of the specific aggravating.  2. The causal increase in criminality of the continuing offence is regulated in article 49 of the Penal Code. It enables the judge to increase the sentence conminada for the crime in one-third (1/3) when multiple violations of the same penal law had been committed in the time of the action or in moments diverse as an expression of the same resolution and criminal disservice to a plurality of persons. However, it should be recognized that the above-mentioned article does not regulate its effectiveness (increase of criminality of a third) in a course is attempted. 3. This Supreme Criminal court, in analyzing the case sub iudice, concludes that the sentences imposed on the accused must be reformed in response to the above mentioned criteria.

RATIONALE: Sixteenth. In consideration of the foregoing, this Supreme Criminal court clarifies that to determine the penalties involving deprivation of liberty which corresponds to imposing the processed Saints Ñaupari and Cherres Stopper should take into account the following operational considerations:

About to the penalty concrete the processed Freddy ANTHONNY SAINTS ÑAUPARI

1. First, you must set the new space punitive damages that generates the attendance of the aggravating circumstance qualified recidivism. For which is taken into account the provisions of article 46-B of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it should be increase 2/3 above the maximum of the penalty conminada for the crime of robbery with aggravating circumstances (not less than 12 nor more than 20 years). What it is illustrated in the following schema:

1. Second, to attend, in parallel, the causal decrease of criminality of the attempt (article 16 of the C. P.) and an increase in criminality of the offence continued with a plurality of aggrieved (article 49 of the C. P.) will be reduced offset of one-third (1/3) on the minimum and maximum of the space of criminality. This action is shown in the following schema:

1. Third, when you go in the case sub iudice four aggravating circumstances of the first paragraph of article 189 of the C. P. of the eight regulated to the date of the facts, the value punitive damages of each aggravating circumstance-specific concurrent in the case sub iudice is equal to 1 year, 1 month and 10 days. Therefore, applying the aggravating effect of such specific circumstances within the space of criminality decreased the penalty particular applicable to the processing SANTOS ÑAUPARI is 17 years, 9 months and 10 days. Which it is illustrated in the following schema:

About to the penalty concrete the processed MARYAN SERGIO CHERRES BOZA

1. First, the go, in parallel, the causal decrease of criminality of the attempt (article 16 of the C. P.) and an increase in criminality of the offence continued (article 49 of the C. P.) will be reduced offset of one-third (1/3) on the minimum and maximum of the space of criminality (not less than 12 nor more than 20 years of imprisonment). This action is shown in the following schema:

1. Second, when you go in the case sub iudice four aggravating circumstances of the first paragraph of article 189 of the C. P. of the eight regulated to the date of the facts, the value punitive damages of each aggravating circumstance-specific concurrent in the case sub iudice is equivalent to 8 months. That being the case, and applying the aggravating effect of such circumstances within the space of criminality, the punishment concrete applicable to the processing CHERRES BOZA is 10 years, 8 months and 2 days. Which it is illustrated in the following schema: