Art. 80. The separation of proceedings shall be optional when the offenses were committed in circumstances of different time or place, or, when due to the excessive number of accused and in order not to prolong their provisional arrest, or for another relevant reason, the judge deems it convenient the break up.
Mandatory and optional separation of processes
Mandatory separation of processes: This device (article 80 of the CPP) deals with the optional separation of processes. This is because there are cases of mandatory separation of proceedings, such as the situation provided for in article 79, paragraph 2 of the CPP , when, due to the refusal of the jurors by the defender, the minimum number of seven jurors is not obtained to compose the Council of Judgment ( Article 469 of the CPP ). According to article 79, paragraph 1 of the CPP , the unity of the process ceases if any co-defendant suffers from a mental illness. There is also the case of suspension of the process if the accused, summoned by public notice, does not appear or appoint a lawyer ( article 366 of the CPP).
Optional separation of processes: Related crimes or continents must be prosecuted and judged together. Separation is authorized (1) when the offenses were committed in circumstances of different time or place, (2) when due to an excessive number of accused and in order not to prolong their pre-trial detention and (3) when, for another relevant reason, the judge deems convenient the separation. What reasons would those be? They are usually related to the binomial celerity/prescription and celerity/preventive. It is necessary for the process to be swift to avoid prescription or to not prolong pre-trial detention. There may also be a need to provide efficient collection of evidence before it is dispersed. Having accused with jurisdiction by prerogative of function and present the reasons of this article 80 of the CPP, there is no impediment to the separation of the process from the one that does not have the privilege. The separation of processes can be carried out while there is no “final sentence” (article 82 of the CPP ), that is, until the sentence that “defines or puts an end” to the process in the 1st instance is published . Once the sentence has been published, there can no longer be separation of processes.
It is the responsibility of the STF to decide on the dismemberment of an investigation procedure or criminal prosecution when one of the investigated has prerogative of jurisdiction before the Court : of dismemberment of investigation procedure or criminal prosecution, when there are multiple suspects and one of them has prerogative of forum before the Court ( AP 871 QO/PR , AP 872 QO/PR, AP 873 QO/PR, AP 874 QO/PR, AP 875 QO/PR, AP 876 QO/PR, AP 877 QO/PR and AP 878 QO/PR, rel. Min. Teori Zavascki, judged on 10-6-2014, judgments published in the DJE of 30-10-2014 – Newsletter 750, Second Panel).
Connection and separation of processes: Although there is an intersubjective connection, art. 80 of the CPP provides for the separation of apparently related causes, a recommended measure in cases where there are multiple parties involved in the related procedures, or where the complexity of the facts under investigation is high ( AP 996, rel. min. Edson Fachin, DJE of 8- 2-2019 ).