Constitutional Court rejects Breitner Puente's habeas corpus regarding notifications

The Constitutional Court declared unfounded the habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Breitner Jensen Puente Domínguez, who alleged a lack of legal defense because the notifications of his criminal proceedings were sent to an address other than the one he declared. The decision is contained in Judgment 1136/2026, corresponding to Case No. 01995-2025-PHC/TC, published in the Constitutional Processes section of the official newspaper El Peruano on Monday, October 12, 2026.

The judgment was issued by the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court in Lima, on the 2nd day of the month of July 2026, with magistrates Ochoa Cardich, Domínguez Haro, and Gutiérrez Ticse; the reporting judge was Domínguez Haro. The case reached the Court via a constitutional grievance appeal filed by lawyer Ricardo García Pinchi against Resolution 2, dated March 27, 2024, from the First Permanent Criminal Appeals Chamber of Ate of the Superior Court of Justice of East Lima, which declared the petition inadmissible.

The original petition was filed on November 28, 2024, against Judge Julia Eleanor Jara Carrera, of the Transitory Single-Judge Criminal Court - NCPP Ate headquarters, for the alleged violation of the rights to effective procedural protection and defense, in connection with the right to personal liberty.

The sentence that originated the case

• Resolution 8, of December 22, 2022: approved the early termination agreement and sentenced the beneficiary to one year and nine months of suspended prison sentence, as the perpetrator of the crime of failure to provide family support.
• Conduct rules imposed: comply with the payment of accrued alimony and civil reparations.
• Resolution 13, of June 21, 2023: required compliance with the sentence under penalty of revoking the suspended sentence and scheduled the payment control hearing for August 28, 2023.
• Resolution 14, of August 28, 2023: declared the revocation request filed by the prosecution as founded and converted the suspended sentence into an effective one.

The appellant was serving a prison sentence at the Huaral Penitentiary Center and requested that his immediate release be ordered, considering it undue and arbitrary.

The allegation regarding the incorrect address

The defense argued that, in the record of the single hearing for the immediate trial on December 22, 2022, Puente Domínguez declared his address as Jirón Madre de Dios, district of Callería, province of Coronel Portillo. However, the challenged judge recorded in Resolution 8 the address of Casa Huerta La Campiña, block B1, lot 24, sector “A”, Huachipa, district of Lurigancho-Chosica, and added that the beneficiary did not remember his current address.

According to the lawsuit, that error prevented the beneficiary from becoming aware of the payment control, the prosecutorial request for the revocation of the sentence, the payment control hearings for the execution of the sentence, and the resolution that ordered the revocation, which limited their right to defense and the filing of appeals.

The court’s diligence and the ruling

The Court verified that the beneficiary attended the immediate trial hearing accompanied by a lawyer of their own choice and that, given the inaccuracy of the address provided, the judge acted with due diligence by resorting to the updated data from Reniec. The notifications were sent to that address and also to the technical defense:

• Notification 316920-2023-JR-PE, dated September 12, 2023.
• Notification 237571-2023-JR-PE, dated July 18, 2023.
• Electronic Edict 237570-2023-JR-PE, published on July 19, 20, and 21, 2023, on the Judiciary’s website.
• Electronic mailbox 108919 of the lawyer Jesús Vicente Díaz Valdez, who stated that he had attempted to communicate with his client without receiving a response.

The Court concluded that a state of material defenselessness attributable to the jurisdictional body was not established and recalled that, in the event of non-compliance with the rules of conduct of a sentence with a suspended penalty, the judge may apply any of the measures provided for in Article 59 of the Penal Code, including the revocation of the penalty, without the need for a prior order or an express request. Therefore, it declared the habeas corpus petition UNFOUNDED.

The resolution consolidates the criterion that irregularities in the processing of a notification only violate the right to defense when they generate proven material defenselessness, and confirms that the revocation of a suspended sentence due to repeated non-compliance with the rules of conduct—in this case, more than three years without fulfilling the payment of accrued pensions and civil reparations—does not require a prior request from the court.

Source: El Peruano, Year XXII / No. 4447, Monday, October 12, 2026, Constitutional Processes section, p. 1 (official reference: Sentence 1136/2026, Exp. No. 01995-2025-PHC/TC).