Subsidiary Private Criminal Complaint and Popular Criminal Action: Analysis of a Specific Case

Abstract

The text analyzes, based on a specific case involving an allegation of medical malpractice resulting in death, the admissibility of a subsidiary private criminal complaint in relation to public prosecution and its distinction from popular criminal action, through a legal-dogmatic examination of legislation, doctrine, legislative drafts, and case law from the higher courts. It argues that, in the case under review, there was no inertia on the part of the Public Prosecution Service, since the information records were duly investigated, archived by reasoned decision, and submitted to internal review by the Coordination and Review Chamber, thus excluding the constitutional and legal hypothesis for subsidiary private prosecution. It further maintains that the complainants’ claim resembles an improper popular criminal action, incompatible with the accusatorial system and with the Public Prosecution Service’s exclusive authority over public criminal prosecution, while also indicating, alternatively, the occurrence of lapse of time. It concludes that the private complaint must be summarily rejected for lack of legal basis and for the absence of prosecutorial omission capable of authorizing private procedural substitution.