Código de Processo Penal Comentado | Flavio Meirelles Medeiros

Article 370º CPP – Subpoenas in the electronic process.

Contribua com a manutenção deste site, faça um pix para [email protected].

Art. 370. In subpoenas of the accused, witnesses and other persons who should be aware of any act, the provisions of the previous Chapter shall be observed, where applicable. (Wording provided by Law No. 9,271, of 4.17.1996)
§ 1 The  subpoena of the constituted defender, of the plaintiff’s lawyer and of the assistant shall be made by publication in the body in charge of publicizing the judicial acts of the region, including, under penalty of nullity, the name of the accused. (Included by Law No. 9,271, of 4.17.1996)
§ 2 If  there is no body for the publication of judicial acts in the county, the subpoena shall be served directly by the clerk, by warrant, or by post with proof of receipt, or by any other suitable means. (Wording provided by Law No. 9,271, of 4.17.1996)
§ 3 The  personal summons, made by the scrivener, will dispense with the application referred to in § 1 .  (Included by Law No. 9,271, of 4.17.1996)
§ 4 The  subpoena of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the appointed defender shall be personal. (Included by Law No. 9,271, of 4.17.1996)

Subpoenas and deadlines in the electronic process

Subpoenas and deadlines in the electronic process:  The electronic process, which is made available to the parties on the world wide web, and whose access to the system requires a prior identification (ID) and password, is regulated by Law n  . 11,419/2006. It represents a major technological advance, which greatly contributes to the speed of the process. It is already fully adopted in the Federal Court and in the Court of some States of the Federation. In the electronic process, the date of publication is considered to be the first business day following the date on which the information was made available in the process. On the first working day following the date considered as the date of publication, the period of ten calendar days begins for the party to be subpoenaed. So, you see, subpoena is not verified with the simple publication, but with the party claiming to be subpoenaed. Article 5, paragraph 1, says that it is considered “the subpoena is carried out on the day that the subpoena is consulted electronically on the content of the subpoena”. The simple consultation and examination of the file of the process does not imply subpoena. The party must be subpoenaed. If the summons is not given, the summons is considered automatically carried out on the date of the end of this period (Article 5, paragraph 3) and the procedural period itself begins (deadline to petition, to appeal, to attach any document by court order, etc.) . To give an example: through an order, the judge grants the defense a period of five days to comment on the document attached by the prosecution. The order is made available in the electronic process on the 10th. On the 15th, the defender is subpoenaed. He has until the 20th to manifest. Let’s say, now, that the defender is not subpoenaed in the process. In that case,date of expiry of this term ” – art. 5o, paragraph 3o). Therefore, the subpoena is considered to have been served on the same day, the 20th, pursuant to paragraph 3 of that provision. Therefore, the first day of the appeal deadline is the 21st. You have until the 25th to manifest. It is also important to consider that, once the party has been summoned, the rules regarding procedural deadlines are those of the CPP ( Article 798 et seq .). On procedural deadlines, see the subtitle  How procedural deadlines start and run in the title The defense deadline , in notes to article 396. 

Electronic process. End of the 10-day period on a non-working day:  According to  article 5, paragraph 3, of Law no. 11,419/2006, “the consultation referred to in §§ 1 and 2 of this article must be carried out within 10 (ten) calendar days from the date of dispatch of the subpoena, under penalty of considering the subpoena automatically carried out on the date of expiration of this period”. What if it ends on a non-working day, Saturday, Sunday or holiday? The law clarifies nothing. It is clear only in case the party carries out the consultation on a non-working day, when it states that, in this case, the subpoena will be considered carried out on the first following working day (article 5, paragraph 2). In our view, by analogy to article 5, paragraph 2, also in the case of the expiration of the ten-day period that ends on a non-working day, the norm of article 5, paragraph 2 applies. In this sense:  Rep. n. 1,663,172 .

The rules of the deadlines of the electronic process summarized: (1) the publication date is considered to be the first business day following the date on which the information was made available in the process; (2) on the first business day following the publication date, the period of ten consecutive days begins for the party to be notified; (3) the subpoena is considered to have been served on the day the subpoena is consulted electronically on the content of the subpoena; (4) if the consultation is made on a non-business day, the summons will be deemed to have been made on the first following business day; (5) the deadline for the party to be subpoenaed is ten calendar days from the publication of the subpoena; (6) after a period of ten days has elapsed without the party being summoned, the summons is considered to have been served and the procedural period itself begins; (7) if the ten-day period ends on a non-working day,

The personal subpoena in the electronic process:  The subpoena carried out in the electronic process is considered personal for all purposes. Paragraph 1 of article 9 of Law 11,419/2006 is clear: “the citations, subpoenas, notifications and remittances that enable access to the entirety of the corresponding process will be considered a personal view of the interested party for all legal purposes”. This device is confirmed by two others, namely: “the subpoenas made in the form of this article, including the Public Treasury, will be considered personal for all legal purposes” (paragraph 6 of article 5) and “in the electronic process, all summons, subpoenas and notifications, including those from the Public Treasury, will be made electronically, pursuant to this Law” (caput of article 9).

Electronic Process and Summons of Witnesses, Accused and Offended:  The subpoena of witnesses, accused and offended must be executed by warrant. 

Advantages and disadvantages of the electronic process:  See  this title  in comments to Article 405.

Doctrine

Demócrito Reinaldo Filho:  Electronic communication of procedural acts in Law 11,419/06 . Crumbs.  In this article, the magistrate Demócrito Reinaldo Filho examines each of the legal modalities of judicial communication in electronic form provided for in Law n. 11,419/06. 

Miguel Antonio Silveira Ramos:  The electronic judicial process, public policies and technological barriers to the principle of access to justice .  Legal Scope 

Jurisprudence:

End of the ten-day period on a non-working day:  “Despite § 3 of art. 5 of Law 11.419/06, which provides for tacit summons, does not expressly deal with the possible extension to the first following business day, if the last day of the ten-day period is a holiday or another non-working day, § 2 of the same legal provision provides that “in cases where the consultation takes place on a non-working day, the summons will be considered as having been carried out on the first following working day”. The systematic interpretation, therefore, leads to the conclusion that, when the date of the electronic consultation or the end of the ten-day period falls on a holiday or non-working day, the first following working day is considered as the date of notification” (Minister Nancy Andrighi – STJ – Answer No. 1,663,172 ).

Beginning and end of the ten-day period and beginning of the procedural period:As already stated in the appealed decision, it appears from the case file that on 03/08/2019 (Friday) an electronic subpoena was issued to the appellants’ lawyers regarding the judgment handed down by the State Court in the motion for clarification, according to subpoenas attached to the e-STJ pages 541/554. 2. Since the attorneys did not carry out the consultation in the electronic system of the Court of origin, there was a tacit/automatic subpoena at the end of the period of 10 (ten) calendar days, according to the rule provided for in art. 5, § 3, of Law No. 11,419/06, that is, the tacit subpoena would occur on 03/17/2019 (Sunday), considering it to be carried out on the first following business day, that is, 03/18/2019 (Monday) fair), pursuant to paragraph 2 of that device. Therefore, the appeal period began on 03/19/2019 (Tuesday), ending on 04/10/2019 (Wednesday), already disregarding 03/25/2019 and 04/09/2019, in which there was a suspension of the procedural deadline in the Court of origin, according to evidence attached when the special appeal was filed (e-STJ pages 574/575). 3. The special appeal, however, was only filed on 04/11/2019 (e-STJ page 562), that is, after the appeal period had expired. 4. Article 5, § 3, of Law No. 11,419/06 expressly determines that the tacit subpoena occurs on the date of the end of the period of 10 consecutive days from the sending of the electronic subpoena, that is, the tacit subpoena is considered to have been carried out on the last day of this period, and not on the day after the 10th day for the subpoena, as mistakenly defended by the appellants (STJ – INTERNAL APPEAL IN THE CLAIM IN THE INTERNAL APPEAL IN THE APPEAL IN SPECIAL APPEAL: AgInt nos EDcl no AgInt no AREsp 1816701 RJ 2021/0002790-1)

Failure to summon the accused to comply with the steps provided for in art. 10 of Law 8.038/1990 does not generate nullity:  It does not generate procedural nullity – for alleged affront to the principle of due process of law or for curtailment of defense – the lack of subpoena of the accused to comply with the steps provided for in art. 10 of Law 8.038/1990 ( RHC 120.356/DF, rel. Min. Rosa Weber, judged on 4/1/2014, judgment published in the DJE of 10/30/2014  – Newsletter 741, First Panel).

The Public Defender’s Office is summoned only with a personal summons:  Despite the defender’s presence at the hearing for the reading of the conviction, the Public Defender’s Office is summoned only with a personal summons, by sending the records ( HC 125.270, rel. Min. Teori Zavascki, judgment on 23-6-2015, judgment published in the DJE of 3-8-2015  – Newsletter 791, Second Panel).

Personal subpoena of the dative defender does not generate recognition of nullity when he himself made this option:  The subpoena of the dative defender only by the official press does not imply recognition of nullity if he has expressly opted for this modality of communication of procedural acts, declining the prerogative of being summoned personally ( STJ, HC 311.676-SP, Judge Jorge Mussi, judged on 4/16/2015, DJe 4/29/2015 – Newsletter 560 ).

Prosecution assistance and recognition of self-defense:  It is possible for parents to intervene as assistants to the prosecution in the event that their child has been killed, but, due to the recognition of self-defense, the complaint has imputed to the defendant only the crime of Illegal possession of a firearm ( STJ, RMS 43.227-PE, Reporting Minister Gurgel de Faria, judged on 3/11/2015, DJe 7/12/2015 – Newsletter n. 574 ).

 The absence of a personal subpoena from the Public Defender’s Office must be contested at the first procedural opportunity : -2016, DJE of 27-6-2016  – Bulletin 830, Second Panel).

Personal summons from the Public Defender ’s  Office is only necessary if there is a request for oral support : , judgment on 13-9-2016, DJE of 5-10-2016 – Newsletter 839, Second Panel).

Theme 959. Repetitive. Counting of deadlines for the Public Prosecutor’s Office:  Need to send the records to the institution. For the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the initial term for counting the period to challenge a judicial decision is the date of delivery of the records to the administrative division of the body, it being irrelevant whether the personal subpoena was given at a hearing, at a notary’s office or by warrant ( REsp 1.349 935-SE, Reporting Justice Rogério Schietti Cruz, Third Section, by majority, judged on 8/23/2017, DJe 9/14/2017. Item 959. Newsletter 611 ).

The initial term for counting the deadline for challenging a decision to the Ombudsman’s Office is the date of delivery of the records to its division: Summons of the Public Defender’s Office at a hearing. Deadline count. Start. Need to send the records to the institution. The date of delivery of the records to the administrative division of the Public Defender’s Office is the initial term for counting the period for challenging a judicial decision by the institution, regardless of the subpoena of the act at a hearing ( STJ, HC 296.759-RS, Reporting Min. Rogério Schietti Cruz , by majority, judged on 8/23/2017, DJe 9/21/2017 – Newsletter 611 ).  

Duplication of subpoenas: The initial term for counting the procedural deadlines, in case of duplicate subpoenas, is carried out by the electronic portal, which prevails over the publication in the Diário da Justiça (DJe) ( EAREsp 1.663.952- RJ , Judge Raul Araújo, Special Court, by majority, judged on 05/19/2021).

Applications of summons rules to subpoenas

Application of the rules relating to service of process to subpoenas:  In subpoenas, where applicable, the provisions relating to service of process contained in  articles 351 et seq .

How the procedural deadlines start and run

Reason for the deadlines: The principle of official impulse prevails in criminal proceedings, which consists of the judge’s duty to conduct the process until its conclusion. If there were no deadlines and preclusion, the processes would be consumed by the prescription. Preclusion is the loss of the possibility of performing the act after the deadline has expired.

Types of deadlines: The deadlines can be continuous (they are not suspended), peremptory (cannot be extended), proper (the lapse of the deadline implies a sanction), improper (does not imply), judicial (established by the judge), legal (provided for in law), common (runs simultaneously to the parties), individual (runs only to the part), successive (runs to one part and then to another).

Year and month: According to Law no. 810/1949 , a year is considered to be the period of twelve months counted from the starting day to the corresponding day and month of the following year. Month the period of time counted from the start day to the corresponding day of the following month. When in the year or month of expiration there is no day corresponding to the beginning of the term, it will end on the first subsequent day.

How procedural deadlines start and run:  The way in which procedural deadlines run is regulated by  article 798 . Unlike what happens with criminal deadlines, in which the first day counts ( article 10 of the CP ), in procedural terms the day of the beginning is not computed. Term a quo and a d who are the initial and final terms of the term. The first day that counts is the day following the term a quo . The last day of the deadline coincides with the ad quem term .

Not only working days are counted: Contrary to what happens with civil proceedings, in criminal proceedings, only working days are not counted. Holidays, Saturday and Sunday are counted, as according to article 798 the deadlines are continuous. Article 798 was not revoked by article 219 of the CPC , as that is a special rule in relation to this one. Likewise, in the special court, not only working days are counted.

It is not interrupted by holidays, holidays, Saturdays or Sundays:  If the deadline ends on Saturday, Sunday or on a holiday, it is extended until the first working day. Article 798, third paragraph , does not refer to Saturday, because at the time of the publication of the code there was forensic work on that day.

Summons on Friday: According to  Precedent 310 of the STF,  when the summons takes place on a Friday, or the publication with the effect of a summons is made on that day, the judicial period will begin on the following Monday, unless there is no office hours. , in which case it will start on the first business day that follows  (see  jurisprudence subsequent to the publication of the Precedent ).

The last day and the end of the working day: The deadline ends at the end of the Judiciary’s working hours. In the electronic process, the deadline ends at midnight.

Not only working days are counted: The deadline for complaints is subject to art. 798 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPP)64, in the event that the contested act was produced in a process or procedure of a criminal nature. In this case, considering that art. 798 of the CPP establishes the continuity of the counting of procedural deadlines, it excludes, even by the principle of specialty, the possibility of analogous incidence of the civil procedural rule that computes only working days for this purpose ( Rcl 23.045 ED-AgR , rel . min. Edson Fachin, DJE of 11-3-2020).

Attachment of warrant, certification, double deadline and receipt order

Deadlines and certification: The termination of the term must be certified ( article 798, paragraph 2 ), but the recognition of the passage does not depend on certification.

Double deadlines for the Public Defender: See subheading Double deadlines for the Public Defender in the title Public Defender’s Office , in comments to Article 261 .

The deadline for the appeal and the order for receipt by the judge: See title Appeal which is not followed up within the legal deadlines in comments on article 575 .

Subpoena of the defender, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and other

Summons of the constituted defender, the plaintiff’s lawyer and the assistant:  The subpoena of the constituted defender, the plaintiff’s lawyer and the assistant is carried out by publication in the official press. In addition to the name of the accused, the data that allow the perfect identification of the process must be included, such as the name of the attorneys and the number of the process, in addition to the purpose for which the subpoena is made. If there is no official newspaper in the county, the summons is made by the clerk, by warrant, or via post with proof of receipt, or by any other suitable means, that is, telephone call, fax and e-mail, provided which confirmed receipt. If there is an official newspaper in the district, the personal subpoena can also be made by the clerk, publication being waived. 

Personal subpoena of the Public Prosecutor’s Office:  The Public Prosecutor’s Office is always subpoenaed in person, pursuant to paragraph 4 of this device, article  41, item IV of Law n. 8.625/93  and  article 18, item II, letter “h” of Complementary Law n. 75/93, and, according to said laws, the subpoena is in the case file and upon delivery of the file. It is discussed in the jurisprudence whether the delivery in the administrative sector or protocol of the premises of the MP should be considered as being the date of the subpoena. The majority understanding is that it should not. The date of the subpoena is the date on which the “aware” was released by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the records. Another jurisprudential debate concerns which date is valid, with disagreement between both: the one released by the clerk in the subpoena certificate, which does not depend on the signature of the MP, since it has public faith, or the one bet by the MP when launching the “aware” . Jurisprudence vacillates, but with a prevalence of decisions favorable to the date set by the MP. In consideration of the principle of double degree of jurisdiction, the most correct understanding is that the later date is valid.

Personal subpoena of the appointed defender:  The defender appointed to promote the defense of the accused must always be summoned in person, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the provision under review.

Personal subpoena of the Public Defender:  Like the Public Defender, the Public Defender (member of the Public Defender’s Office career) is entitled to personal subpoena with the case file, pursuant to article  5, paragraph 5 of Law n. 1.060/50  and, also, in  Complementary Law n. 80/94, in articles 128, item I  (State Public Defender), in  article 44, item I  (Union Public Defender) and  article 89, item I  (Federal District Public Defender). In addition to the personal subpoena with the file load, it has double deadlines, according to the aforementioned articles.

Summons of the Defender and the Accused: See this same title in comments to article 392.

Jurisprudence

No need for new subpoenas from the prosecution assistant who, once subpoenaed, fails to attend any of the acts of the instruction or trial:  There is no procedural nullity in the event that the prosecution assistant, for not having reasoned the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office after being subpoenaed therefore, stop being summoned regarding subsequent procedural acts (Resp 1.035.320-SP, Justice Sebastião Reis Júnior, judged on 4/2/2013 – Newsletter No. 0519). 

Rescinded powers of attorney and nullity of trial:  The conviction of an accused person who, on the eve of the judgment in which he was sentenced, revoked the powers granted to accredited lawyers and, as a result, was deprived of technical defense (HC 118.856/SP , rel. min. Marco Aurélio, judged on 10-6-2014, judgment published in the DJE of 26-9-2014  – Newsletter 750, First Panel).

Suspension of a lawyer’s registration with the OAB impedes the hearing of the habeas corpus appeal:  The suspension of a lawyer’s registration with the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) – even if he or she has originally lodged the habeas corpus – also prevents the subsequent appeal from being heard it presented ( RHC 121.722/MG, rel. Min. Ricardo Lewandowski, judged on 5/20/2014, judgment published in the DJE of 10/6/2014  – Newsletter 747, Second Panel).

Initial term of the period for the MP to appeal:  When the Public Prosecutor’s Office is summoned personally in a notary, giving notice in the records, its appeal period will start on that date, and not on the day the records are sent to its administrative department (EREsp 1.347.303 -GO, Reporting Minister Gurgel de Faria, judged on 12/10/2014, DJe 12/17/2014 – Newsletter 554 ). 

Necessity of subpoenaing the subsequently constituted defender:  The subpoena of the judgment session of the criminal appeal carried out without the prior subpoena of the subsequently constituted defender is null ( RHC 127.258, rel. min. Teori Zavascki, judgment on 5-19-2015, judgment published in the DJE of 9-9-2015  – Bulletin 786, Second Panel).

The Public Defender’s Office is summoned only with a personal summons:  Despite the defender’s presence at the hearing for the reading of the conviction, the Public Defender’s Office is summoned only with a personal summons, by sending the records ( HC 125.270, rel. Min. Teori Zavascki, judgment on 23-6-2015, judgment published in the DJE of 3-8-2015  – Newsletter 791, Second Panel).

The absence of a personal subpoena from the Public Defender’s Office or the dative defender about the acts of the process generates, as a rule, its nullity. Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ). Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ).

Judgments:

HC 310908/SP, Rel. Minister Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, Fifth Panel, judged on 08/18/2016, DJE 08/26/2016

HC 355769/PR, Rel. Minister Jorge Mussi, Fifth Panel, judged on 08/04/2016, DJE 08/09/2016

HC 212710/SP, Rel. Minister Rogerio Schietti Cruz, judged on 05/10/2016, DJE 05/19/2016

HC 334626/SP, Rel. Justice Joel Ilan Paciornik, Fifth Panel, judged on 05/05/2016, DJE 05/16/2016

AgInt no REsp 1270317/ES, Rel. Justice Sebastião Reis Júnior, judged on 05/05/2016, DJE 05/18/2016

HC 340076/SP, Rel. Minister Ribeiro Dantas, Fifth Panel, judged on 03/17/2016, DJE 03/29/2016

See also the journals (updated to date of publication):

Jurisprudence Information No. 0560, published on May 3, 2015.

The dative defender who expressly declines the prerogative regarding the personal subpoena of procedural acts cannot argue nullity when the communication occurs through the official press. Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ). Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ).

Judgments:

HC 341445/SP, Rel. Minister Joel Ilan Paciornik, Fifth Panel, judged on 05/19/2016, DJE 05/30/2016

HC 344094/SP, Rel. Minister Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, Fifth Panel, judged on 04/26/2016, DJE 05/02/2016

HC 331432/SP, Rel. Minister Ericson Maranho (TJ/SP Judge), judged on 03/08/2016, DJE 03/21/2016

HC 334161/SP, Rel. Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, judged on 02/16/2016, DJE 02/24/2016

HC 316173/SP, Rel. Minister Sebastião Reis Júnior, judged on 06/09/2015, DJE 07/01/2015

See also the journals (updated to date of publication):

Jurisprudence Information No. 0560, published on May 3, 2015.

The absence of subpoena from the defense regarding the issuance of a precatoria to hear a witness is a cause of relative nullity. Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ). Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ).

Judgments:

HC 345949/RS, Rel. Minister Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, Fifth Panel, judged on 06/28/2016, DJE 08/01/2016

HC 340327/SP, Rel. Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, judged on 03/03/2016, DJE 03/10/2016

HC 146374/MT, Rel. Justice Nefi Cordeiro, judged on 03/01/2016, DJE 03/09/2016

AgRg in AREsp 700925/PR, Rel. Minister Rogerio Schietti Cruz, judged on 12/15/2015, DJE 02/02/2016

HC 310014/RJ, Rel. Minister Leopoldo de Arruda Raposo (Judge summoned from the TJ/PE), Fifth Panel, judged on 09/22/2015, DJE 09/29/2015

See also the journals (updated to date of publication):

Jurisprudence Information No. 0479, published on July 1, 2011.

Failure to notify the defender about the date of the hearing of the witness in the court deprecated does not give rise to procedural nullity, provided that the defense has been informed of the issuance of the letter rogatory. Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ). Source: jurisprudence in theses (STJ).

Judgments:

AgRg in HC 365263/SP, Rel. Minister Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, Fifth Panel, judged on 08/23/2016, DJE 08/29/2016

HC 331748/SP, Rel. Minister Felix Fischer, Fifth Panel, judged on 05/10/2016, DJE 05/24/2016

HC 336864/SP, Rel. Minister Jorge Mussi, Fifth Panel, judged on 02/23/2016, DJE 03/04/2016

RHC 066001/CE, Rel. Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, judged on 02/04/2016, DJE 02/18/2016

REsp 1176652/RS, Rel. Minister Nefi Cordeiro, judged on 10/01/2015, DJE 12/04/2015

HC 310014/RJ, Rel. Minister Leopoldo de Arruda Raposo (Judge summoned from the TJ/PE), Fifth Panel, judged on 09/22/2015, DJE 09/29/2015

Know more:

Annotated Precedent no. 273

See also the journals (updated to date of publication):

Jurisprudence Information No. 0073, published on October 6, 2000.

In the scope of the Special Criminal Courts, the public defender is not required to be summoned personally, being summoned during the trial session or by the official press. Source: Jurisprudence in theses (STJ).

Judgments:

RHC 079148/MG, Rel. Minister Felix Fischer, Fifth Panel, judged on 04/18/2017, DJE 05/03/2017

RHC 054206/SP, Rel. Minister Ribeiro Dantas, Fifth Panel, judged on 10/20/2016, DJE 11/09/2016

HC 241735/SP, Rel. Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, judged on 11/19/2012, DJE 11/26/2012

HC 105548/ES, Rel. Minister Arnaldo Esteves Lima, Fifth Panel, judged on 04/27/2010, DJE 05/17/2010

Monocratic Decisions

RHC 048047/SP, Rel. Justice Ericson Maranho (TJ/SP Judge), judged on 08/03/2015, Published on 08/06/2015

Subpoena in special courts

Summons in special courts:  In special courts, according to  article 67 of Law n. 9.099/95 , the subpoena can be made by correspondence with a personal acknowledgment of receipt or, in the case of a legal entity or individual firm, by delivery to the person in charge of reception, who must be identified, or, if necessary, by a bailiff, regardless of warrant or letter rogatory, or even by any suitable means of communication, that is, phone call, fax and e-mail, provided receipt is confirmed.

Jurisprudence

In the scope of the Special Criminal Courts, the public defender is not required to be summoned personally, being summoned during the trial session or by the official press. Source: Jurisprudence in theses (STJ).

Judgments:

RHC 079148/MG, Rel. Minister Felix Fischer, Fifth Panel, judged on 04/18/2017, DJE 05/03/2017

RHC 054206/SP, Rel. Minister Ribeiro Dantas, Fifth Panel, judged on 10/20/2016, DJE 11/09/2016

HC 241735/SP, Rel. Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, judged on 11/19/2012, DJE 11/26/2012

HC 105548/ES, Rel. Minister Arnaldo Esteves Lima, Fifth Panel, judged on 04/27/2010, DJE 05/17/2010

Monocratic Decisions

RHC 048047/SP, Rel. Justice Ericson Maranho (TJ/SP Judge), judged on 08/03/2015, Published on 08/06/2015

judgment summons

Summons of the sentence:  The summons of the sentence is carried out in the form of  article 392 , its items and paragraphs.

Viability of subpoena at the right time

Subpoena at the right time:  From the possibility of applying the rules relating to summons to subpoenas, the possibility of subpoenaing at the right time arises. See the subheading  Summons with the right time under the heading Summons with the right time , in notes to Article 362.

witness not located

Witness not located and proceedings:  See subheading  Witness not located, hearing, proceedings and nullity  under the heading Witnesses , in notes to Article 400.

Maria da Penha Law

Summons of the victim in the Maria da Penha Law:  Pursuant to  article 21 of Law n. 11.340/2006 , the victim must be notified of the procedural acts related to the aggressor, especially those related to entering and leaving prison, without prejudice to the subpoena of the appointed lawyer or the Public Defender.

Fim

Contribua com seu comentário

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *

Summary