{"id":14761,"date":"2025-10-08T10:27:59","date_gmt":"2025-10-08T15:27:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/?post_type=jurisprudencia&p=14761"},"modified":"2025-10-08T10:28:47","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T15:28:47","slug":"recursodenulidadn-398-2025lima-delito-preterintencional-y-limites-de-la-sustitucion-de-pena","status":"publish","type":"jurisprudencia","link":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/ing\/jurisprudencia\/recursodenulidadn-398-2025lima-delito-preterintencional-y-limites-de-la-sustitucion-de-pena\/","title":{"rendered":"RECURSO DE NULIDAD N.\u00b0398-2025 LIMA: Delito preterintencional y l\u00edmites de la sustituci\u00f3n de pena"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00bfPuede sustituirse la pena de un delito doloso por la de un delito preterintencional bajo una ley m\u00e1s benigna?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme court<\/strong>, en el Recurso de Nulidad N.\u00ba 398-2025 \u2013 Lima<\/em>, ha precisado que no procede la sustituci\u00f3n de pena<\/strong> cuando ello implica modificar el elemento subjetivo del tipo penal<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

El condenado fue sentenciado por feminicidio doloso<\/strong>, delito que exige la intenci\u00f3n directa de causar la muerte<\/strong> de una mujer por su condici\u00f3n de tal. Posteriormente, solicit\u00f3 que se le aplicara el art\u00edculo 121-B del C\u00f3digo Penal<\/strong>, modificado por la Law 30819<\/strong>, que regula las lesiones seguidas de muerte<\/strong>, alegando ser una norma posterior y m\u00e1s benigna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sin embargo, el Tribunal Supremo reafirm\u00f3 que dicho art\u00edculo describe un tipo preterintencional<\/strong>, en el que el agente causa dolosamente lesiones<\/strong>, pero el resultado muerte se produce sin intenci\u00f3n<\/strong>, aunque con posibilidad de previsi\u00f3n.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Por tanto, reconvertir un hecho doloso en uno preterintencional<\/strong> supondr\u00eda alterar los hechos probados y la naturaleza del dolo<\/strong>, vulnerando los principios de cosa juzgada<\/strong> and seguridad jur\u00eddica<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

La Corte record\u00f3 que la retroactividad benigna (art. 103 de la Constituci\u00f3n y arts. 6 y 7 del C\u00f3digo Penal)<\/strong> solo opera sin modificar los hechos ni la culpabilidad declarada<\/strong>.
El feminicidio doloso no puede reconducirse ni sustituirse por el tipo preterintencional del art. 121-B CP, aun cuando la nueva ley sea m\u00e1s favorable. La sustituci\u00f3n de pena no puede alterar el dolo por culpa o preterintenci\u00f3n.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}}},"categorias":[],"class_list":["post-14761","jurisprudencia","type-jurisprudencia","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/ing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jurisprudencia\/14761","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/ing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jurisprudencia"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/ing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/jurisprudencia"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/ing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/jurisprudencia\/14761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/ing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"categorias","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esford.pe\/ing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categorias?post=14761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}