CONCURRENCE OF OFFENSES AND SINGLE SENTENCE IN BOLIVIA

IDEAL CONCURRENCE OF OFFENSES

Ideal concurrence occurs when a single criminal act or omission simultaneously breaches multiple criminal statutes, without mutual exclusion between the offenses.

In such cases, the judge must impose a single sentence based on the most serious offense, but may increase the maximum penalty by up to one-fourth to acknowledge the legal plurality of the infringements.

Practical Example:
If someone fires a gun intending to injure a person, and the bullet also damages third-party property, the same act (the gunshot) may constitute the crimes of personal injury and property damage. In this scenario, the judge will impose the sentence for the more serious offense—personal injury—and may increase the maximum penalty by up to 25%.

This legal framework avoids double punishment for a single act, while ensuring the sentence adequately reflects the full severity of the unlawful behavior.

REAL CONCURRENCE OF OFFENSES

In contrast to ideal concurrence, real concurrence arises when a person commits two or more distinct offenses through separate actions, even if those actions are related.

In this case, the judge will also apply the sentence for the most serious offense, but may increase the maximum penalty by up to one-half, considering the actual plurality of criminal behaviors.

Practical Example:
Suppose an individual commits an aggravated robbery, and several weeks later assaults a public official. These are two separate acts, each with its own legal classification and autonomy. The judge will impose the penalty for the more serious offense—aggravated robbery—and may increase it by up to 50% to account for both crimes.

This rule ensures proportionality without excessive accumulation of penalties, maintaining fairness without violating the principle of humane sentencing.

SINGLE SENTENCE FOR MULTIPLE OFFENSES

When a defendant faces multiple charges that must be resolved under a single judicial decision, a unified sentence must be issued.

Under Bolivian criminal legislation, the judge presiding over the most serious offense is responsible for determining the final sentence for all crimes committed, applying the rules of either ideal or real concurrence.

This approach ensures a comprehensive view of the case and prevents contradictory decisions from different courts.

Additionally, it reinforces the coherence of the criminal justice system by imposing a global sentence that reflects the extent of harm caused and the defendant’s dangerousness, always within legal limits.

Practical Example:
If a defendant is charged with document forgery and fraud, the judge handling the fraud case—being the more serious offense—will issue the single sentence that encompasses both crimes.

IMPORTANCE OF CONCURRENCE OF OFFENSES

The legal treatment of concurrence of offenses adheres to the principles of proportionality and rationality in sentencing, avoiding both excessive punishment and partial impunity.

It also allows a unified assessment of the defendant’s criminal conduct, ensuring the sentence corresponds to the overall social harm caused.

In Bolivian judicial practice, these mechanisms are essential to prevent improper accumulation of convictions and to maintain a balanced criminal justice system aligned with constitutional principles.

In summary, concurrence of offenses and the issuance of a single sentence in Bolivia are legal tools that ensure proportionate justice in cases involving multiple crimes. While ideal concurrence penalizes a single act with multiple effects, real concurrence addresses the repetition of distinct criminal acts. In both situations, the single sentence ensures a fair, rational punishment in line with current legal standards.