1. Praeceptum poenale est remedium gravius quam monitio et correptio, quod applicatur «monitionibus et correptionibus incassum factis, vel si ex eisdem effectum sperare non liceat» (can. 2310).
2. Ut praeceptum poenale legitime irrogetur, requiritur ut: a) delictum sit certum; b) Superior sit competens; c) reus audiatur idemque iure utatur quo pollet sese defendendi; d) testes, si qui sint, audiantur et periti; e) forma praescripta servetur in eo infligendo.
3. Certitudo delicti praescribitur ad validitatem praecepti poenalis.
4. Ius sese defendendi reo competit ex ipso iure naturae.
5. Qua de re reus in ea condicione ponendus est ut se defendere possit ab ipso exordio actionis poenalis contra eum. Patet ergo legis violationem, id est errorem iuris in procedendo, patrari cum reus nec auditur nec potest se defendere antequam ei poenae canonicae infligantur (in casu ad nihilum habendum est quod reus audiri potuisset a competenti Curiae Romanae Dicasterio).
6. Etiamsi auditio rei ad aequitatem tantum pertineret, non licet Superioribus contra
unum aequitatis praeceptum procedere in sodales suos; adhuc minus, errore patefacto, in eo perseverare (in casu tamen auditio rei legem quoque positivam in iure particulari constituit).
7. Iuxta probatos auctores, peritorum sententiae, etsi concordes, de authenticitate alicuius scripturae, ad summum constituere valent probationem semiplenam. Hinc comparatio litterarum de se sola non sufficit ad plene probandum scripturam manu cuiuspiam esse factam, sed ad id requiruntur una simul alia adminicula, ut proprii scribentis sigilli appositio, subscriptio testium, auctorum attestatio (in casu tantum emendationes manu scriptae in epistulis anonymis, aliunde aliena machina scriptoria exaratis, habebantur rei).
8. Habetur error iuris in decernendo si deest debita probatio responsabilitatis rei. Consequenter in errorem iuris in decernendo incidit quoque competens Curiae Romanae Dicasterium, utpote quod Superiorum decisionem confirmat.
| 1. A penal precept is a graver remedy than admonition and correction, and is applied «when admonitions and corrections have been made in vain, or if no effect can be hoped for from them» (can. 2310).
2. For a penal precept to be lawfully imposed, it is required that: a) the delict be certain; b) the Superior be competent; c) the accused be heard and exercise the right which he possesses of defending himself; d) the witnesses, if there are any, and the experts be heard; e) the prescribed form be observed in inflicting it.
3. The certainty of the delict is prescribed for the validity of the penal precept.
4. The right to defend oneself belongs to the accused by the natural law itself.
5. Accordingly, the accused must be placed in such a condition that he can defend himself from the very outset of the penal action against him. It is evident, therefore, that a violation of the law — that is, an error of law in procedendo — is committed when the accused is neither heard nor able to defend himself before canonical penalties are inflicted on him (in the case at hand it counts for nothing that the accused could have been heard by the competent Dicastery of the Roman Curia).
6. Even if the hearing of the accused pertained only to equity, it is not lawful for Superiors to proceed against their own members contrary to even one precept of equity; still less, once the error has been laid bare, to persist in it (in the case at hand, however, the hearing of the accused also constitutes positive law in the particular law).
7. According to approved authors, the opinions of experts on the authenticity of a piece of writing, even if concordant, can at most constitute semi-full proof. Hence comparison of handwriting by itself alone does not suffice fully to prove that a writing was made by someone’s hand; for this, other corroborating elements (adminicula) are required together with it, such as the affixing of the writer’s own seal, the signature of witnesses, and the attestation of authors (in the case at hand, only the handwritten corrections in anonymous letters — for the rest typed out on another’s typewriter — were held to be the accused’s).
8. There is an error of law in decernendo if due proof of the responsibility of the accused is lacking. Consequently, the competent Dicastery of the Roman Curia likewise falls into an error of law in decernendo, inasmuch as it confirms the decision of the Superiors. |
