ON THE PROHIBITION OF REFORMATIO IN PEJUS AND PRO SOCIETATE CRIMINAL REVIEW

Abstract

This article examines the topic of pro societate criminal review within the scope of Brazilian Criminal Law, questioning whether the legal prohibition that prevents the revision of acquittal decision, even in the face of evident injustice or proven fraud, is compatible with the principles of substantive justice and social protection. Traditionally, in criminal law, criminal review constitutes an instrument reserved exclusively for the defendant, aimed at correcting possible errors that have caused them harm. However, the discussion regarding the revision of acquittal sentences, when resulting from procedural fraud or serious material errors, has generated considerable doctrinal and jurisprudential debate, especially in legais systems comparable to Brazil’s. The research employed a qualitative and exploratory methodology, based on an extensive bibliographic review, analysis of case law, and study of specialized doctrine, with the aim of assessing whether the current restriction on pro societate review contributes to the maintenance of decisions detrimental to the collective interest, thereby limiting the corrective role of the criminal justice system in situations where the defendant benefited unduly. The findings indicate that Brazilian legislation, by restricting criminal review exclusively to the defendant, may favor the perpetuation of significant judicial errors, compromising the reliability of the penal system, particularly in cases involving procedural fraud. The research also reveals the existence of doctrinal currents that support the adoption of pro societate review as a means to balance the protection of the individual rights of the accused with the need to safeguard collective interests. Finally, it is concluded that, although the protection of the defendant’s rights remains essential, it is recommended that the legal system exceptionally contemplate the possibility of reviewing acquittal decisions that are manifestly unjust or fraudulent, thereby promoting a more equitable justice system sensitive to social demands.