Non Bis In Idem Principle in Bolivia

Development in Criminal Procedural Legislation

Bolivian criminal procedural legislation expressly provides that no one may be prosecuted or convicted more than once for the same act, even if the legal characterization is modified or new circumstances are alleged.

From this provision, several clear rules arise:

• Prohibition of double prosecution.
• Prohibition of double punishment.
• Irrelevance of changes in criminal classification.
• Inadmissibility of reopening a case based on new circumstances derived from the same act.

This is a procedural guarantee of direct application by judges and courts.

Jurisprudential Development of the Principle

Interpretation by the Supreme Court of Justice

The Supreme Court of Justice has defined the non bis in idem principle as the prohibition against prosecuting or convicting a person twice for the same act. Its criminal jurisprudence has linked this guarantee directly to:

• The principle of proportionality.
• Legal certainty.
• Res judicata.

The highest court has consistently held that once a final judgment has been issued, the State loses the authority to reactivate criminal prosecution concerning the same facts.

Criteria of the Plurinational Constitutional Court

The Plurinational Constitutional Court has emphasized that the stability of the judicial system depends on respect for final decisions. Reopening a case already resolved violates due process and undermines the integrity of the justice system.

Constitutional jurisprudence has consolidated two central ideas:

• A final judgment constitutes a definitive bar to a new proceeding.
• Res judicata is immutable and intangible.

Scope of the Non Bis In Idem Principle

Prohibition of Double Proceedings in Any Jurisdiction

The guarantee prevents the existence of two or more proceedings concerning the same act, even when:

• They are processed under different sanctioning systems.
• Different jurisdictions intervene, including indigenous native peasant jurisdiction.

For example, if a person was acquitted through a final judgment for a specific act, a new criminal proceeding based on the same historical event cannot be initiated.

Change of Legal Classification

One of the most relevant aspects is that the principle remains applicable even if an attempt is made to modify the legal classification of the act.

If a person was initially prosecuted for fraud and later authorities attempt to initiate a new proceeding for embezzlement or breach of trust, but the facts are exactly the same, the new proceeding is inadmissible. What is decisive is the identity of the historical facts, not the name of the offense.

Alleged New Circumstances

It is not valid to reopen a proceeding by alleging new circumstances if they derive from the same act already judged. Allowing such practice would generate indefinite persecution and violate legal certainty.

Judgments Issued Abroad

When a person has been tried, convicted, or acquitted abroad through a final judgment for the same acts, that decision must be respected. Initiating a new proceeding would:

• Disregard the effectiveness of foreign res judicata.
• Undermine international judicial cooperation.
• Violate due process guarantees.

Relationship Between Non Bis In Idem and Res Judicata

Res judicata constitutes the procedural manifestation of the principle. Once a judgment becomes final:

• It becomes immutable.
• It is binding upon the parties and authorities.
• It produces the definitive closure of the criminal proceeding.

Any subsequent attempt to reopen the case concerning the same facts lacks legal validity.

Defense Strategy Against Double Jeopardy

From a technical perspective, the defense must:

• Precisely identify the factual identity of the act.
• Prove the existence of a prior final judgment.
• Demonstrate that a change in legal classification does not alter the historical basis of the case.
• Invoke the procedural rule that enshrines the prohibition of double jeopardy.
• Support the argument with consolidated constitutional and supreme jurisprudence.

Procedurally, the argument may be raised through an objection, nullity motion, or the corresponding legal remedy, with the objective of preventing the improper reopening of the proceeding and safeguarding the accused’s legal certainty.

In conclusion, the non bis in idem principle constitutes a structural guarantee of the criminal justice system in Bolivia. It limits the punitive power of the State, protects legal certainty, and ensures the stability of final judicial decisions. It prevents double prosecution even under a different legal classification or alleged new circumstances, and extends its protection to foreign final judgments. Respect for this principle strengthens due process and consolidates the Constitutional Rule of Law.