[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki42\/precious-formula-wikipedia\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki42\/precious-formula-wikipedia\/","headline":"Precious formula – Wikipedia","name":"Precious formula – Wikipedia","description":"before-content-x4 from Wikipedia, L’Encilopedia Libera. after-content-x4 The absolute formula , in the Italian legal system, it is one of the","datePublished":"2017-11-28","dateModified":"2017-11-28","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki42\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki42\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/44a4cee54c4c053e967fe3e7d054edd4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/44a4cee54c4c053e967fe3e7d054edd4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/it.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:CentralAutoLogin\/start?type=1x1","url":"https:\/\/it.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:CentralAutoLogin\/start?type=1x1","height":"1","width":"1"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki42\/precious-formula-wikipedia\/","wordCount":1724,"articleBody":"     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});before-content-x4from Wikipedia, L’Encilopedia Libera.        (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4The absolute formula , in the Italian legal system, it is one of the two acquittal formulas with which the judge declares the accused not guilty in relation to the facts subject to the charge. The reasons why the judge uses an absolute formula can be different: the proof of the accused’s guilt may be missing, or the proof was insufficient to “eliminate any reasonable doubt” (art. 533, paragraph 1), or was contradictory . In a sentence with an absolute formula, the judge orders the liberation of the accused in a state of precautionary custody and declares the end of any other personal precautionary measure possibly arranged (art. 532, paragraph 1).        (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Table of ContentsAcquittal because the fact does not exist [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Example [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Acquittal because the defendant did not commit the fact [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Example [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Acquittal because the fact does not constitute a crime [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Examples [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Acquittal because the fact is not provided for by law as a crime [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Examples [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Acquittal because the crime was committed by a person not attributable or not punishable for another reason [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Examples [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Acquittal because the fact does not exist [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] The judge who uses this absolute formula assumes that none of the supplementary elements of the contested criminal case is proven. This formula prefigures the so -called full acquittal . Example [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] He contested the accused of having committed a murder and then from the hearing it appears that the alleged victim died of natural causes.        (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Acquittal because the defendant did not commit the fact [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] This formula is used by the judge when he ascertains that the fact of crime took place, but was not committed by the accused but by another person. This absolute formula is also configured as a full acquittal . Example [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] Referring to the previous example, the victim was killed (there was a murder), but was committed by a person other than the accused. These first two absolute formulas, denying the historical assumption of the accusation, configure the wider acquittal. [first] Acquittal because the fact does not constitute a crime [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] With this formula, the judge declares that the fact charged to the accused was accomplished by him, however the fact cannot be considered a criminal offense (hence the does not constitute a crime ) because the subjective element is missing (willful misconduct, fault or pre -intention, see example 1). The judge uses this formula even if the fact was committed by the accused in the presence of a cause of justification; The presence of one of these causes, in fact, eliminates the anti -juridicity of the fact making it lawful (see example 2). Examples [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] The public prosecution asks for the sentence for murder of the accused, accused of having caused a road accident from which the victim was killed, but from the hearing it appears that the accused was unable to do anything to avoid the event (there is no Neither will they do is fault and not even pre -intention). The judge considers the murder proven, but does not condemn the defendant because he believes he has acted in a situation of legitimate defense (there is the cause of justification). Acquittal because the fact is not provided for by law as a crime [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] In this case, the pronunciation “because the fact is not provided for by law as a crime” presupposes that the historical fact attributed to the accused is not equipped with a criminal sanction, but is punished under other profiles (administrative or disciplinary) The judge uses this formula even when the historical fact was previously provided for as a crime, but the law of which it referred has lost effectiveness; This can take place when the Constitutional Court declares the illegitimate rule (see example 2), or when a law decriminalizes certain crimes (see example 3). It is an acquittal in law ( in terms of law ). Examples [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] During the trial, the crime of damage (art. 635 of the Italian Criminal Code) with fault, but the judge fulfills the defendant because, according to the criminal system, only the crime of damage characterized by willful misconduct is discussed. The sentence of the Constitutional Court n. 126 of April 19, 1968 declared the constitutional illegitimacy of art. 559 of the Italian Criminal Code, which punished the crime of adultery. Law no. 689 of 24 November 1981 (“Changes to the criminal system”) has transformed several crimes into administrative offenses. Acquittal because the crime was committed by a person not attributable or not punishable for another reason [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] With the latter formulates the judge ascertains that the historical fact really took place, was committed by the accused and configures a crime, but the accused is not punishable; The latter may be not punishable when it is not attributable (see example 1), or when it is covered by a cause of non -punishment (see example 2), or even when it is criminally immune (see example 3) . With Legislative Decree 28\/2015, the cause of non -punishment for particular tenuity of the fact was introduced into the system, without prejudice to the injured party the possibility of contacting the civil judge to obtain the sentence of the manager for compensation for damages. It is the most unfavorable absolute formula for the accused. Examples [ change | Modifica Wikitesto ] The defendant turns out to have made the fact when he was less than 14 years old, or he is totally infirm of his mind. After the trial, the defendant has proven to be theft against his sister, who lives together with him (this situation configures the cause of non -punishment pursuant to art. 649 of the Italian Criminal Code, paragraph 1); The judge considers the fact that the defendant is a diplomatic agent accredited to the Head of State (the defendant therefore benefits from diplomatic immunity, Institute of International Law). Part of the doctrine believes that the choice of the code to present a multiplicity of absolute formulas was a “non -reasonable” choice. According to Paolo Tonini “[…] the ” presumption of innocence It imposes, to those who accuse, the burden of eliminating any reasonable doubt about the realm. Therefore, the alternative should be exclusively between “guilty” and “not guilty”. The topics, which lead to acquitting, should be contained in the motivation of the sentence and not appear in the device; otherwise they could constitute a prejudice when the formula is not totally liberating. “” ( Paolo Tonini, Criminal procedure manual ) ^  Giovanni Conso and Vittorio Grevi, Criminal procedure compendium , 5th edition, Cedam.  Luigi Tramontano (edited by), Criminal procedure code explained , 6th ed., Piacenza, LA Tribuna publishing house, 2008. Luigi Tramontano (edited by), Criminal code explained , 7th ed., Piacenza, La Tribuna publishing house, 2008. Paolo Tonini, Criminal procedure manual , 10th ed., Milan, Giuffr\u00e8 Editore, 2009, pp. 672-673. Luigi Grilli, The criminal procedure. Practical guide – Volume I , Wolters Kuwer Italia, 2009.        (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4"},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki42\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/all2en\/wiki42\/precious-formula-wikipedia\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Precious formula – Wikipedia"}}]}]