Cassazione Penale - Sentenza n. 01213/2026

Key Facts

Issues

• The court considered the reliability of Pasquale Todisco's account, where he claimed to have alerted his father Salvatore about Domenico Giordano leaving the church. This involved analyzing video evidence, intercettazioni, and whether the statements were corroborated by independent evidence to meet art. 192, comma 3, cod. proc. pen. standards for evaluating declarations in criminal proceedings.
• The court assessed the legality of Pasquale Todisco's statements from 19 October 2021, focusing on whether he was already under investigation (with non-equivocal evidence of guilt) at the time, which would require procedural guarantees under art. 63, comma 2. The analysis included whether Carabinieri reports from September-October 2021 created sufficient suspicion to trigger these protections.
• The court evaluated the prosecution's argument that the murder was premeditated (planned over time with sicari) and motivated by abietti/futili reasons (vendetta over civil disputes). This included examining the temporal gap between planning and execution, the method of attack, and the proportionality between the offense and the civil conflict that precipitated it.
• The court examined whether the statements of Salvatore Todisco, obtained during an interrogation on 2 August 2021 without legal assistance, violated procedural safeguards under art. 63, comma 1, cod. proc. pen. This issue centered on the admissibility of evidence when an individual is not yet formally under investigation but is later found to have been subject to investigative measures (e.g., surveillance and searches) prior to making the statements.

Holdings

• The second motive is inadmissible. The defense failed to clearly identify specific inadmissible acts and their impact on the overall inculpatory framework. The court noted that while the defense referenced the GIP's failure to value the alleged falsehood in Todisco's statement about the tractor use, this element was evaluated alongside other evidence in a comprehensive analysis.
• The first motive is inadmissible. The defense's argument about unexplored alternative leads was not sufficiently specific to justify the inadmissibility of the evidence. The court emphasized that the evidence (false alibi) was part of a broader evaluation of eight distinct indicators, and its omission does not undermine the overall assessment of serious and consistent inculpatory evidence.
• The third motive is unfounded. The court rejected claims of inadmissibility for Pasquale Todisco's October 19, 2021 statements. It found the police had no non-equivocal evidence of his involvement until his own statements revealed the connection to the victim's exit from the church, satisfying procedural requirements for testimonial evidence.
• The fourth motive is inadmissible. The court affirmed the Tribunal's evaluation of Pasquale Todisco's statements as intrinsically credible and corroborated by video evidence and intercepted communications. The defense's argument about procedural deficiencies in the initial questioning was dismissed as lacking in specific, concrete objections.

Remedies

• The court rejects the appeal filed by Salvatore Todisco against the decision of the Naples Tribunal to impose custodial measures in relation to the charges of murder and illegal possession of a firearm.
• The court condemns Salvatore Todisco to pay the court costs associated with the legal proceedings following the rejection of his cassation appeal.

Legal Principles

• The presumption of innocence (presunzione di non colpevolezza) was considered in the evaluation of evidence admissibility. The court held that the precautionary measures and evidence handling did not violate this presumption, as procedural safeguards were applied when non-equivocal indicia of guilt existed, and the evidence against Todisco met the required thresholds for custodial decisions.
• The court evaluated the standard of proof for precautionary measures (custodia in carcere), requiring a 'ragionevole o alta probabilità di colpevolezza' (reasonable or high probability of guilt) under art. 273, comma 3, cod. proc. pen. This standard is lower than trial certainty and focuses on the gravity of the crime and the need for pre-trial detention, while distinguishing it from the evidentiary requirements of a trial.
• The court applied the admissibility criteria under art. 63 cod. proc. pen., determining that statements by Todisco and his relatives were inutilizzabili (inadmissible) when they were made without procedural safeguards (art. 63, comma 2) due to the presence of non-equivocal indicia of guilt. The decision emphasized that inutilizzabilità requires clear, non-equivocal evidence of guilt, not mere suspicion, and that procedural protections must be followed when such indicia exist.

Precedent Name

• Mero
• Gjonaj
• Pascali
• Audino
• Fruci
• Morea
• Mazzelli
• P.
• Necchi
• Santoro
• Tommasi
• Scaglione
• Balla

Cited Statute

• Law 497 of 1974 (Legge 497/1974)
• Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale)
• Penal Code (Codice Penale)

Judge Name

• Raffaello Magi
• Giacomo Rocchi
• Vincenzo Galati
• Michele Toriello

Passage Text

• «l'inutilizzabilità assoluta...richiede che a carico degli stessi risulti l'originaria esistenza di precisi, anche se non gravi, indizi di reità...non potendo la sua posizione di persona informata essere mutata dall'esistenza di sospetti o ipotesi investigative»
• «la sanzione di inutilizzabilità...non postula la previa formale iscrizione della persona nel registro degli indagati...essendo sufficiente che essa sia stata raggiunta da elementi concreti di colpevolezza che possano perlomeno far sospettare la sua responsabilità per la consumazione del reato»
• «in tema di impugnazione di provvedimento emesso dal tribunale in funzione di giudice dell'appello cautelare, che «in tema di misure cautelari personali, allorché sia denunciato, con ricorso per cassazione, vizio di motivazione del provvedimento emesso dal tribunale del riesame in ordine alla consistenza dei gravi indizi di colpevolezza, alla Corte suprema spetta il compito di verificare, in relazione alla peculiare natura del giudizio di legittimità e ai limiti che ad esso ineriscono, se il giudice di merito abbia dato adeguatamente conto delle ragioni che l'hanno indotto ad affermare la gravità del quadro indiziario a carico dell'indagato, controllando la congruenza della motivazione riguardante la valutazione degli elementi indizianti rispetto ai canoni della logica e ai principi di diritto che governano l'apprezzamento delle risultanze probatorie»