She declined to accept a plea agreement, forcing the case toward trial
Mais de um ano após os ataques de 8 de janeiro de 2023 às sedes dos três poderes em Brasília, o Supremo Tribunal Federal segue conduzindo os processos daqueles que participaram dos eventos. Em 28 de maio, Edigleuma Maria da Rocha, piauiense de 46 anos, será interrogada por videoconferência após recusar um acordo de não persecução penal — escolha que empurrou seu caso para o caminho do julgamento. A trajetória de outro conterrâneo seu, recentemente condenado a onze anos e meio de prisão por acusações semelhantes, lança uma sombra sobre o que pode estar por vir.
- Edigleuma recusou o acordo oferecido pelo Ministério Público, abrindo mão da possibilidade de encerrar o caso sem julgamento e apostando na instrução processual.
- Três policiais militares que atuaram nos eventos de 8 de janeiro serão ouvidos como testemunhas, trazendo ao processo relatos de quem estava no centro da crise.
- A sentença de 11,5 anos imposta a João de Oliveira Antunes Neto, outro piauiense envolvido nos mesmos atos, revela a dureza com que o STF tem tratado os casos.
- O interrogatório por videoconferência marcado para 28 de maio será um momento decisivo: poderá definir se Edigleuma avança para julgamento ou se novos elementos mudam o rumo do processo.
O Supremo Tribunal Federal marcou para 28 de maio o interrogatório de Edigleuma Maria da Rocha, piauiense de 46 anos presa durante os atos de 8 de janeiro de 2023 e posteriormente solta. A audiência de instrução, conduzida por videoconferência pelo juiz federal Rafael Henrique Janela Tamai Rocha, tornou-se necessária depois que Edigleuma recusou o Acordo de Não Persecução Penal proposto pelo Ministério Público Federal — decisão que encerrou qualquer possibilidade de resolução extrajudicial e levou o caso ao caminho do julgamento.
Ao lado do interrogatório de Edigleuma, serão ouvidos três policiais militares presentes nos eventos: o comandante do Batalhão de Operações Especiais da PMDF, Carlos Eduardo Melo de Souza; o operador da unidade de intervenção tática Hermison Bernardes Rangel; e o negociador Ronaldo Pires da Rocha. Acusação e defesa apresentarão suas versões durante a mesma sessão.
O caso se desenrola em meio a um amplo esforço do STF para julgar os envolvidos nos ataques que levaram milhares de pessoas a invadir as sedes dos três poderes em Brasília, em uma tentativa, segundo os procuradores, de reverter o resultado das eleições presidenciais de 2022. A gravidade das penas já aplicadas ficou evidente com a condenação recente de João de Oliveira Antunes Neto, também do Piauí, a onze anos e meio de prisão por abolição violenta do Estado democrático, tentativa de golpe e associação criminosa armada — sentença que ele contesta na Justiça, mas que sinaliza o tom dos julgamentos em curso.
On May 28, Brazil's Supreme Court will conduct a videoconference interrogation of Edigleuma Maria da Rocha, a 46-year-old woman from Piauí state, in connection with her alleged participation in the January 8, 2023 storming of government buildings in Brasília. The hearing, overseen by federal judge Rafael Henrique Janela Tamai Rocha, represents a critical juncture in her case after she declined to accept a plea agreement from prosecutors.
Rocha was arrested during the January 8 protests but released afterward. In March, the Supreme Court formally summoned her to present her defense at the instruction hearing—the phase where evidence is presented and witnesses testify. Her refusal to sign a Non-Prosecution Agreement (ANPP) with the federal prosecutors' office forced the case toward trial rather than settlement.
The interrogation will include testimony from three military police officials who were present during the events: Carlos Eduardo Melo de Souza, commander of the Special Operations Battalion of the Federal District Military Police; Hermison Bernardes Rangel, an operator with the tactical intervention unit; and Ronaldo Pires da Rocha, a negotiator for the same unit. These witnesses will be questioned alongside Rocha herself, with both prosecution and defense presenting their cases.
Rocha's case unfolds against a backdrop of ongoing prosecutions stemming from January 8. Another Piauí resident, João de Oliveira Antunes Neto, was recently sentenced to eleven and a half years in prison on charges of violently abolishing the democratic state, attempting a coup, and armed criminal association. Antunes Neto has appealed his conviction, but the sentence signals the severity with which the courts are treating participation in the events.
The January 8 protests saw thousands breach the buildings housing Brazil's three branches of government in what prosecutors have characterized as an attempt to overturn the results of the 2022 presidential election. The Supreme Court has pursued hundreds of cases related to the day's events, with interrogations and trials continuing more than a year later. Rocha's May 28 hearing will determine whether she proceeds to trial or whether new evidence or testimony might alter the trajectory of her case.
Citações Notáveis
She was summoned in March to present her defense at the instruction hearing after refusing to sign a Non-Prosecution Agreement— Supreme Court proceedings
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would someone reject a plea agreement in a case like this? It seems like it would make things harder.
Sometimes people believe they didn't do what they're accused of, or they want their day in court to contest the charges directly. A plea agreement means admitting guilt or accepting responsibility. If Rocha felt the characterization of her actions was wrong, she might have chosen to fight it.
And what happens now at this May 28 hearing?
The court will hear from witnesses—the police commanders and tactical operators who were there that day. They'll describe what happened, what they saw, what Rocha allegedly did. Then Rocha herself will be questioned. It's the moment where the evidence gets tested in front of the judge.
The other man from Piauí got eleven and a half years. Is that what she's facing?
Potentially. The charges are serious—they involve accusations of trying to overthrow the democratic system. But sentences can vary based on individual circumstances, what role someone played, whether they were armed, whether they entered buildings. We won't know until a verdict comes.
Why does it matter that these are both from Piauí?
It doesn't, really, except that it shows the geographic spread of who participated. January 8 wasn't just a Brasília phenomenon. People came from across the country. These two cases from the same state just happen to be moving through the courts at the same time.