Ley 44 del 2007
Resumen
Esta ley enmienda la Regla 234 de las Reglas de Procedimiento Criminal de Puerto Rico para establecer cuándo los tribunales deben celebrar una vista evidenciaria en mociones de supresión de evidencia, distinguiendo entre evidencia incautada con y sin orden judicial. Requiere una vista obligatoria cuando la evidencia se incauta sin orden judicial si la solicitud alega hechos que demuestran ilegalidad o irrazonabilidad, y cuando se incauta con orden si el demandante demuestra una controversia sustancial de hechos.
Contenido
(No. 44)
(Approved June 1, 2007)
AN ACT
To amend the last paragraph of Rule 234 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended, to establish that the courts shall hold an evidentiary hearing when the evidence has been seized with a warrant and the plaintiff shows that a substantial controversy on the facts exists which makes the holding of a hearing necessary; and that when the evidence is seized without a warrant the courts are bound to hold an evidentiary hearing if the request of the plaintiff alleges facts or grounds that show that the search or seizure is illegal or unreasonable.
STATEMENT OF MOTIVES
Article II, Section 10, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico establishes that no warrant for arrest or search and seizure shall be issued except by judicial authority and only upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons to be arrested or the things to be seized. See Pueblo v. Cruz Calderón, 2002 T.S.P.R. 5. This constitutional right protects citizens against any unreasonable search and seizure performed by the Commonwealth. Thus, under our legal system any seizure carried out without a warrant is presumed unreasonable and, in consequence, invalid. See E.L.A. v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 115 D.P.R. 197, 207 (1984).
Rule 234 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is the procedural mechanism used to claim the rights established in Article II, Section 10 of our Constitution. Said Rule provides a mechanism for citizens to request the suppression of material
(objective) evidence and testimony prior to trial. Holding a hearing prior to the trial seeks to promote procedural economy and "...it would be contrary to such economies to have to wait until the day of the trial to pause the proceedings in order to argue a collateral question on admissibility the emergence of which was foreseeable [unofficial translation]." See Pueblo v. Blasé Vázquez, 148 D.P.R. 618 (1999).
Rule 234 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure has not been amended since the approval of Act No. 65 of July 5, 1988, which specifically amended the last paragraph of the Rule to establish that in the motion to suppress, the plaintiff shall state specific facts or reasons that support the grounds upon which it is based. See Pueblo v. Maldonado Rivera, 135 D.P.R. 563 (1994). We are aware of the fact that since 1988, the Supreme Court, when interpreting Rule 234 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, has created jurisprudential norms that have become the procedures in effect. By means of this Act, we intend to adjust said Rule in accordance with the Opinions of the Supreme Court so as to have coherence and harmony between the text thereof and what has turned out to be the practice and procedure in the courts.
At present, Rule 234 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not establish or distinguish the procedures that the court shall follow when the suppression of evidence is requested on the grounds that the search or seizure was carried out without a warrant. Therefore, this Act establishes the procedure to be followed by the court and the parties when one of the following situations has occurred: (1) that the search or seizure was performed without a warrant, or (2) that the search or seizure was performed with a warrant. It should be remembered that our Constitution establishes the presumption of invalidity when there is no warrant at the time of seizing evidence or making an arrest. It is for said reason that it is obligatory to hold a hearing prior to the trial. See Pueblo v. Blasé Vázquez, supra.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO:
Section 1.- The last paragraph of Rule 234 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is hereby amended to read as follows: "Rule 234. SEARCH; MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
The motion to suppress evidence shall state the specific facts or reasons that support the ground or grounds upon which it is based. The Court shall entertain evidence about any question of fact needed to resolve the request and it shall hold an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate other than the one who shall hear the trial, when dealing with evidence seized with a warrant and the plaintiff shows that a substantial controversy of facts that makes the holding of a hearing necessary; in the absence of such demonstration, the court may rule a motion without prior hearing, on the grounds of the documents presented by the parties.
The court shall be bound to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to the trial and before a magistrate other than the one who will hear the trial when dealing with evidence seized without a warrant if in the request the plaintiff alleges facts or grounds that show that the search or seizure is illegal or unreasonable. The prosecutor shall be bound to contest the presumption of illegality of the search or seizure and shall establish the elements to support the exception corresponding to the requirement of a warrant.
If the motion is allowed, the property shall be returned if there are no legal grounds to prevent it, and will not be admissible as evidence at any hearing or trial. The prosecutor shall be notified of the motion and it shall be presented five (5) days prior to the trial, unless the existence of just cause for not presenting it within said term is demonstrated or the grounds for the
suppression are unknown to the defendant or the illegality in obtaining the evidence arises from the evidence of the prosecutor."
Section 2.- This Act shall take effect immediately after its approval.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify to the Secretary of State that the following Act No. 44 (H.B. 2667) of the $\underline{5}^{ ext {th }}$ Session of the $\underline{15}^{ ext {th }}$ Legislature of Puerto Rico:
AN ACT to amend the last paragraph of Rule 234 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended, to establish that the courts shall hold an evidentiary hearing when the evidence has been seized with a warrant and the plaintiff shows that a substantial controversy on the facts exists which makes the holding of a hearing necessary; and that when the evidence is seized without a warrant the courts are bound to hold an evidentiary hearing if the request of the plaintiff alleges facts or grounds that show that the search or seizure is illegal or unreasonable, has been translated from Spanish to English and that the English version is correct.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, today $28^{ ext {th }}$ of September of 2007.
Francisco J. Domenech Director