Validity of Testimonial Statements: The Orientation of Judgment 17164/2025 and the Principle of 'Tempus Regit Actum'

In the complex landscape of criminal law, the issue of the usability of statements made during preliminary investigations is of paramount importance. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 17164 of 30/01/2025 (filed on 07/05/2025), has provided significant clarification, consolidating a jurisprudential orientation aimed at ensuring legal certainty and the correct formation of evidence. This ruling, presided over by G. D. M. and drafted by M. M. M., addresses a delicate issue: the fate of statements made by a person who, initially heard as a person informed about the facts, subsequently becomes an investigated person or defendant.

The Principle of "Tempus Regit Actum" in Criminal Law

The judgment in question is based on a cornerstone of procedural law: the principle of "tempus regit actum" (time governs the act). This Latin maxim means that the validity and legal framework of an act are determined by the law in force at the time of its completion. In the specific context of statements made by a person who later changes status, the Court has established that what matters is the declarant's qualification at the time the statements were made.

The Court of Cassation, in fact, rejected the appeal filed against the decision of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Naples, reiterating that statements are legitimately usable if, at the time of the deposition, the person still and solely held the "status" of a person informed about the facts. The circumstance that this person subsequently assumed the condition of an investigated person or defendant is irrelevant to the contrary. This principle is closely linked to the principle of the preservation of acts, aimed at preserving the effectiveness of validly completed procedural acts.

The Maxim of Judgment 17164/2025: Clarity and Implications

The core of the decision is contained in its maxim, which deserves careful analysis:

In accordance with the principle of the preservation of acts and the related rule of "tempus regit actum," statements made by a person who, at the time of deposition, still and solely held the "status" of a person informed about the facts, are legitimately usable, and the circumstance that they subsequently assumed the condition of an investigated person or defendant is irrelevant to the contrary. (Case concerning a witness, previously heard for summary information, subsequently reported for defamation in relation to the same facts).

This maxim clarifies a fundamental point: the assessment of the usability of statements is not retroactive. If, at the time of the interrogation, for example, person G. S. was considered simply a source of information, their statements are valid, even if they were later reported for defamation (as in the specific case) or investigated for other crimes. This means that the acquisition of evidence is crystallized at the time of its formation, respecting the procedural conditions then existing. This interpretation prevents the proceedings from being tainted by subsequent events, ensuring stability and predictability. It is crucial to distinguish this case from the hypothesis where the person should have been heard from the outset with the guarantees of an investigated person (Art. 63, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure), for which the statements would have been unusable.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The judgment is part of a well-defined regulatory and jurisprudential framework. The cited regulatory references include Art. 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (summary information from persons informed about the facts), Art. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (incapacity to testify), and, indirectly, Art. 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (incriminating statements). Article 63, particularly paragraph 2, provides for the inadmissibility of statements made by someone who should have been heard as an investigated person or defendant but was heard as a person informed about the facts. However, the ruling in question does not contradict this rule but rather delimits its application: inadmissibility occurs only if the status of investigated person was already evident at the time of the statements, not if it arises later.

This position is in line with previous consistent rulings, including an important decision by the United Sections (No. 33583 of 2015 Rv. 264482-01), which had already affirmed the legitimacy of using statements made by a person who, at the time of the act, was not yet an investigated person. Jurisprudence has thus consistently reiterated that a subsequent "mutatio status" does not affect the validity of what was legitimately acquired.

• **Key Principle:** Validity of the act determined by the status at the time of its completion.
• **Exception:** If the status of investigated person was already known or should have been known, the statements are inadmissible.
• **Objective:** To ensure the preservation of evidence and legal certainty.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Procedural Protection

Judgment 17164/2025 represents an important piece in the construction of clearer and more predictable criminal law. By reaffirming the principle of "tempus regit actum" and the principle of the preservation of acts, the Court of Cassation offers precise guidance on the usability of testimonial statements. This orientation is fundamental not only for legal professionals – lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officers – but also for citizens, who can thus better understand the boundaries and guarantees of criminal proceedings. Clarity in these matters is essential for the protection of rights and the efficiency of justice.