analogy or relation between them, in the judgment of the court, and should they not have been the subject of proceedings to that time.

ART. 18. The following, in their order, are judges and courts which have jurisdiction of causes involving connected crimes:

1. That of the territory where the crime was committed to which. a higher penalty is affixed.

2. The one first beginning proceedings, if equal penalties are affixed to the crime.

3. The one designated by the criminal audiencia or by the supreme court in their respective cases, when the causes were begun at the same time, or when it does not appear which was begun first.

CHAPTER II.

QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN ORDINARY JUDGES AND COURTS.1

ART. 19. Questions of jurisdiction may be raised and sustained by— 1. Municipal judges at any stage of the action, and by the parties between the citation and the hearing.

2. Judges of examination, during the sumario.

3. Criminal audiencias during the hearing of the trial.

4. The public prosecutor at any stage of the cause.*

5. The private accuser, before filing his first plea, after having entered an appearance in the cause.

6. The accused and the civil party, whether appearing as plaintiff or defendant, within three days after the cause has been transmitted to them for classification.

ART. 20. The following are hierarchical superiors for the decision of questions of jurisdiction, in the manner prescribed by the following articles:

1. Of municipal judges of the same judicial district, the judge of examination.

2. Of judges of examination of the same circuit, the criminal audiencia.

3. Of criminal audiencias of the same territory, the territorial audiencia in banc.

4. Of territorial audiencias, or when the question of jurisdiction is between a criminal audiencia and the criminal chamber of a territorial audiencia, the supreme court.

1 The rules prescribed in this chapter for the hearing and determination of questions of jurisdiction, are not applicable when raised in causes against those guilty of flagrant crimes; in such cases the contest is curtailed, being heard and determined in accordance with the special procedure of article 782.

2

Right of the public prosecutor to raise a question of jurisdiction at any stage of the cause.—This right includes the power to interpose an inhibitory or declinatory plea without any limitation whatsoever; and if he interposes the former plea between the conclusion of the sumario and the beginning of the oral trial, the procedure mentioned in article 23 can not apply. December 26, 1885. (Gaceta of May 9, 1886.)

Cuando cualquiera de los jueces ó tribunales mencionados en los números 1o, 2o y 3o, no tengan superior inmediato común, decidirá la competencia el que lo sea en el orden jerárquico, y á falta de éste el Tribunal Supremo.1

ART. 21. El Tribunal Supremo no podrá formar ni promover competencias y ningún juez, tribunal ó parte podrá promoverlas contra él.

Cuando algún juez' ó tribunal viniere entendiendo en asunto cuyo conocimiento estuviere reservado al Tribunal Supremo, ordenará éste á aquél de oficio, á excitación del ministerio fiscal ó á solicitud de parte, que se abstenga de todo procedimiento y remita los antecedentes, en el término de segundo día, para en su vista resolver.

El Tribunal Supremo podrá sin embargo autorizar, en la misma orden y entre tanto que resuelve la competencia, la continuación de aquellas diligencias cuya urgencia ó necesidad fueren manifiestas.

Contra la decisión del Tribunal Supremo no se da recurso alguno. ART. 22. Cuando dos ó más jueces de instrucción se reputen competentes para actuar en un asunto, si á la primera comunicación no se pusieren de acuerdo sobre la competencia, darán cuenta con remisión de testimonio al superior competente, y éste en su vista decidirá de plano y sin ulterior recurso cuál de los jueces instructores debe actuar.

Mientras no recaiga decisión, cada uno de los jueces instructores seguirá practicando las diligencias necesarias para comprobar el delito, y aquellas otras que considere de reconocida urgencia.

3

Dirimido el conflicto por el superior á quien competa, el juez de instrucción que deje de actuar remitirá las diligencias practicadas y los objetos recogidos al declarado competente dentro de segundo día, á contar desde el en que reciba la orden superior para que deje de

conocer.

1Corresponde al Tribunal Supremo la decisión de la competencia suscitada entre dos juzgados enclavados en distrito de la misma audiencia territorial, pero perteneciente uno de ellos á circunscripción de audiencia de lo criminal. Fúndase esta doctrina en que "formando parte del pleno de la audiencia territorial la sala de lo criminal, vendría á ser juez y parte" si dicha audiencia territorial decidiese el conflicto. (Sala 3, sent. de junio 28 de 1888. Gac. 30 id.)

Este precepto, aplicable á las competencias negativas por virtud del Art. 46, no permite que se remitan al superior las diligencias originales, pues entonces no pueden seguir practicándose las necesarias para comprobar el delito y sus circunstancias. (Sentencia de septiembre 20 de 1886.) Pero si, esto no obstante, remiten las actuaciones originales, tal irregularidad no debe producir la declaración de estar mal formada la competencia. (Julio 17 de 1884).

3 Desde que un juzgado tiene conocimiento de que otro ha prevenido causa sobre el mismo hecho de que aquél conoce, debe abstenerse de dictar resolución definitiva antes de promover la inhibitoria, y de no hacerlo así la que recaiga no puede ser obstáculo para decidir la competencia. (Sala 3, sentencia de 29 de Abril de 1878.)

When any of the judges or courts mentioned in numbers 1, 2, and 3 shall have no immediate common superior, the question of jurisdiction shall be decided by the hierarchical superior, and in the absence of the latter, by the supreme court.1

ART. 21. The supreme court can not institute or raise a question of jurisdiction, nor can any judge, court, or party question its jurisdiction.

If any judge or court shall take cognizance of a question, jurisdiction of which is reserved to the supreme court, the latter shall order the former, ex officio, on motion of the public prosecutor or of a party, that it discontinue further proceedings and forward the same, on or before the second day, for the proper decision.

The supreme court may nevertheless authorize in the same order, until the question of jurisdiction is settled, the continuation of such proceedings the urgency or necessity of which is apparent.

There shall be no remedy against the decision of the supreme court. ART. 22. When two or more examining judges consider themselves as having jurisdiction of a matter, if upon the first communication they should not agree as to the jurisdiction, they shall make a report to the proper superior, forwarding a transcript," and the latter shall decide eo instanti, in view thereof and without further remedy, which of the examining judges shall have jurisdiction.

Until a decision is rendered, each of the examining judges shall continue the proceedings necessary to prove the crime and any other proceedings which he may consider of recognized urgency.3

After the conflict has been decided by the proper superior, the judge of examination who discontinued proceedings shall forward the proceedings had, and the objects gathered, to the judge declared competent, within two days after receiving the superior order to cease taking cognizance thereof.

1 The decision of a question of jurisdiction between two courts situated within the district of the same territorial audiencia, but one of them belonging to the circuit of a criminal audiencia, pertains to the supreme court. The basis for this doctrine is that "as the criminal chamber of a territorial audiencia forms part of the audiencia in banc, it would become a judge and party" if said territorial audiencia should decide the conflict. (Third Chamber, decision of June 28, 1888. Gaceta of the 30th.)

* This precept, applicable to negative questions of jurisdiction by virtue of article 46, does not permit the transmission to the superior of the original proceedings, because in such case it would be impossible to continue the necessary proceedings to prove the crime and its circumstances. (Decision of September 20, 1886.) But if, notwithstanding this, they forward the original proceedings, such irregularity does not permit of a declaration that the question of jurisdiction is not well taken. (July 17, 1884.)

3 From the moment that a court has knowledge that another court has begun a cause involving the same matter of which it is taking cognizance, it must not render a definite decision before requesting an inhibition; otherwise the decision rendered will not be an obstacle to the decision of the question of jurisdiction. (Third chamber, decision of April 29, 1878.)

Art. 23. Si durante el sumario el ministerio fiscal ó el acusador particular entendiesen que el juez instructor no tiene competencia para actuar en la causa, podrán reclamar ante el tribunal superior á quien corresponda, el cual, previos los informes que estime necesarios, resolverá de plano y sin ulterior recurso.1

En todo caso se cumplirá lo dispuesto en el párrafo segundo del artículo anterior.

ART. 24. Terminado el sumario, toda cuestión de competencia que se promueva suspenderá los procedimientos hasta la decisión de ella.* ART. 25. El juez 6 tribunal que se considere competente deberá promover la competencia.

También acordará la inhibición á favor del juez ó tribunal competente cuando considere que el conocimiento de la causa no le corresponde, aunque sobre ello no haya precedido reclamación de los interesados ni del ministerio fiscal.

Los autos que los jueces municipales ó de instrucción dicten, inhibiéndose á favor de otro juez ó jurisdicción, serán apelables observándose en este caso lo dispuesto en el último parrafo del art. 12. Contra los de las audiencias podrá interponerse el recurso de casación.3

1No es admisible, por lo tanto, el de casación. Sentencias de junio 27 y 3 y 31 de diciembre, 1884.

2 No es procedente suscitar competencia sobre conocimiento de una causa fallada ya definitivamente. (Sentencia de julio 8 de 1878.)

3¿Cuando deberá apelar el ministerio fiscal de los autos de inhibición á que se refiere este artículo y el 12?

"Si el ministerio fiscal ha sido oído antes de dictarse los indicados autos, y su opinión se hubiere aceptado por el juez ó audiencia respectiva, no debe interponerse recurso alguno.

"Si el ministerio fiscal no ha tenido intervención, ó hubiera opinado en contra de la procedencia de dicho auto, entonces debe apelar del mismo, si ha sido dictado por un juez municipal ó de instrucción.

'Respecto á los fallos dictados por el Tribunal colegiado, deberá interponerse el recurso de casación, si hubiere motivo legal para ello." (Número 5o de la Memoria de la fiscalia del Tribunal Supremo de 15 de septiembre de 1883, y 10 de la de 15 de septiembre 1886.)

En sentencia de 14 de noviembre de 1883 declaró el Tribunal Supremo que contra el auto de un juez inhibiéndose del conocimiento de una causa en favor de la jurisdicción de guerra, no es admisible el recurso de casación, pues contra tal proveído procede el recurso ordinario de apelación, según el art. 25 de la ley de enjuiciamiento criminal, á lo cual no obsta la disposición del artículo 50, porque esta disposición se refiere al caso de que exista ó amenaze trabarse una verdadera cuestión de competencia, y no cuando un juez de instrucción espontáneamente ó al primer requerimiento ó petición que se le dirige se juzga incompetente y acuerda inhibirse, sin que por lo tanto medie todavía semejante cuestión ni haya que tramitarla, á no ser que, acogiéndose los interesados al recurso que la ley en su citado art. 32 les facilita, acuden en apelación al superior inmediato, y éste determine que sostenga su jurisdicción y se sustancie y resuelva el asunto de la manera y por quien en el expresado título está prescrito.

ART. 23. If during the sumario the public prosecutor or the private accuser shall consider that the examining judge has no jurisdiction to proceed in the cause, they may object before the proper superior court, which, after the investigation it considers necessary, shall decide eo instanti without further remedy.'

In any case the provisions of the second paragraph of the foregoing article shall be complied with.

ART. 24. Upon the conclusion of the sumario, any question of jurisdiction raised shall stay the proceedings until it is decided.*

ART. 25. The judge or court considering itself competent must raise the question.

It shall also grant the inhibition in favor of the competent judge or court when it considers that it has not jurisdiction of the cause even though the persons interested or the public prosecutor have not previously pleaded thereto.

The decrees of municipal or examining judges inhibiting themselves in favor of another judge or jurisdiction may be appealed from, in which case the provisions of the last paragraph of article 12 shall be observed. An appeal for annulment of judgment lies from decrees of audiencias.3

1An appeal for annulment of judgment is therefore inadmissible. (Decisions of June 27 and December 3 and 31, 1884.)

2 A question of jurisdiction can not be raised as to the cognizance of a cause which has already been definitely decided. (Decision of July 8, 1878.)

3 When must the public prosecutor appeal from the decrees of inhibition referred to in this article and in article 12?

"If the public prosecutor has been heard before the issue of said decrees, and his opinion should have been accepted by the respective judge or audiencia, no appeal can be taken.

"If the public prosecutor should not have had any intervention, or should have opposed the issue of said decree, he must then appeal therefrom, if it issued from a municipal or examining judge.

"With regard to the decisions of a collegiate tribunal, an appeal for annulment of judgment must be taken if there is a legal cause therefor." (No. 5 of the memorial of the staff of the public prosecutor of the supreme court of September 15, 1883, and 10 of that of September 15, 1886.)

In a decision of November 14, 1883, the supreme court declared that an appeal for annulment of judgment does not lie from a decree of a judge declining the jurisdiction of a cause in favor of the war jurisdiction, because an ordinary appeal lies therefrom according to article 25 of the law of criminal procedure, which is not affected by article 50, because the latter provision relates to a case where a true question of jurisdiction exists or is liable to arise, and not when a judge voluntarily or upon the first demand or request addressed to him deems himself incompetent and consents to his inhibition, without such a question arising and having to be decided, unless the persons interested seek the remedy of law granted them by the said article 32 and appeal to the immediate superior, and the latter determines that he shall sustain his jurisdiction, and that the matter be heard and determined in the manner and by the persons prescribed in the said title.

18473-01-4