Art. 81. Once the collection of processes by connection or continence has been verified, even if in the process within its own jurisdiction the judge or court issues an acquittal or downgrades the offense to another that does not fall within its jurisdiction, it will remain competent in relation to the others Law Suit.
Single paragraph. Once the jurisdiction by connection or salute is recognized to the jury, the judge, if he disqualifies the infraction or dismisses or acquits the accused, in a way that excludes the jurisdiction of the jury, will refer the case to the competent court.
Acquittal, disqualification of the infraction and related crimes
Judgment that acquits or disqualifies the infraction: If the proceedings are joined by connection or continence and the judge or court acquits or disqualifies the infraction for another one that does not fall within its competence, it remains competent in relation to the other proceedings. It is the perpetuation of competence in favor of speed; otherwise, the entire instruction would have to be redone. However, if disqualification results in absolute incompetence, this provision number 81 is inapplicable. The extension of competence is only viable when there is relative competence. In the face of absolute competence, never (see the title Absolute competence, relative competence and extension of competence in comments to article 69). While article 81 deals with disqualification resulting from relative incompetence, article 383, second paragraph of the CPP, deals with disqualification when it implies absolute lack of competence of the court. The said provision states that the judge, without modifying the description of the fact contained in the complaint or complaint, may assign it a different legal definition and, resulting in an infringement of the jurisdiction of another court, the records will be forwarded to it. There are those who mistakenly maintain that there can be perpetuation of competence even in the face of absolute incompetence. It is a libertine thesis, as it is not just the rule of competence that is at stake. It is the constitutional principle of the natural judge. Sustaining that jurisdiction is fixed at the time of the complaint based on the classification made in the initial accusation is to make the choice of judge available to the prosecutor. If we are going to authorize the MP to choose the jurisdiction when classifying the crime, then it is necessary to scratch the principle of the natural judge of the Federal Constitution. However, it is clear that the classification of the offense in the complaint is provisional and does not have the legal effect of definitively establishing jurisdiction. Who can and should give the last word on competence is the jurisdiction, not the prosecution. If the jurisdiction itself, as a result of the disqualification, recognizes itself as absolutely incompetent, it cannot then intend to judge. However, it is clear that the classification of the offense in the complaint is provisional and does not have the legal effect of definitively establishing jurisdiction. Who can and should give the last word on competence is the jurisdiction, not the prosecution. If the jurisdiction itself, as a result of the disqualification, recognizes itself as absolutely incompetent, it cannot then intend to judge. However, it is clear that the classification of the offense in the complaint is provisional and does not have the legal effect of definitively establishing jurisdiction. Who can and should give the last word on competence is the jurisdiction, not the prosecution. If the jurisdiction itself, as a result of the disqualification, recognizes itself as absolutely incompetent, it cannot then intend to judge.
Disqualification, dismissal and acquittal: In the event of paragraph 1, there is no perpetuation of jurisdiction. See the heading Disqualification by pronunciation and by the judges in the comments to article 74.
