Citas bibligráficas
Esta es una referencia generada automáticamente. Modifíquela de ser necesario
Del, N., (2024). Informe Jurídico sobre la Sentencia Casatoria N°. 662- 2018/Ayacucho [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28471
Del, N., Informe Jurídico sobre la Sentencia Casatoria N°. 662- 2018/Ayacucho []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28471
@misc{renati/12953,
title = "Informe Jurídico sobre la Sentencia Casatoria N°. 662- 2018/Ayacucho",
author = "Del Rio Nuñez, Nicole",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
Título: Informe Jurídico sobre la Sentencia Casatoria N°. 662- 2018/Ayacucho
Autor(es): Del Rio Nuñez, Nicole
Asesor(es): Valcárcel Angulo, Mariella Lenkiza
Palabras clave: Delitos de los funcionarios--Jurisprudencia--Perú; Peculado--Jurisprudencia--Perú; Bienes públicos--Perú; Donaciones--Perú
Campo OCDE: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01
Fecha de publicación: 7-ago-2024
Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Resumen: El presente informe jurídico busca esclarecer la naturaleza del objeto del tipo
penal de peculado. Actualmente, los denominados delitos de corrupción de
funcionarios han cobrado relevancia en la coyuntura nacional, siendo el peculado
uno de los de mayor incidencia. En la jurisprudencia, durante mucho tiempo no
fue materia de controversia la cualidad de los caudales o efectos en los cuales
recae la acción material del ilícito de peculado. Se asumía que dichos bienes
debían ser públicos en tanto se está ante un delito contra la administración
pública; de allí que, si el bien era privado, el argumento de la mayoría de la
defensa de los acusados hacía referencia a la atipicidad de la conducta. No
obstante, es a raíz de la Sentencia Casatoria N°. 662-2018/Ayacucho donde se
establece que no solo los bienes de naturaleza pública encajan en el delito de
peculado, estos también pueden ser de origen privado, para ello se hizo uso del
Acuerdo Plenario N°: 1-2010/CJ-116. A pesar que, dicho razonamiento es válido,
en el presente caso no debió ser aplicado. Nuestra Corte Suprema pasó por
inadvertido la figura de donación como una modalidad de transferencia de
propiedad, de haberla considerado, no hubiera sido necesario delimitar si se
estaba ante un bien público o privado. Con la figura legal de donación se debió
entender que el bien que puede ser de origen privado, una vez donado, pierde
tal cualidad y se convierte en público.
This legal report seeks to clarify the nature of the object of the crime of embezzlement. Currently, the crimes of corruption of public officials have gained relevance in the national situation, being embezzlement one of the most common. In the jurisprudence, for a long time the nature of the assets or effects on which the material action of the crime of embezzlement falls was not a matter of controversy. It was assumed that such assets had to be public, since it is a crime against the public administration; hence, if the asset was private, the argument of most of the defense of the defendants referred to the atypical nature of the conduct. However, it is as a result of the Cassatory Ruling N°. 662- 2018/Ayacucho where it is established that not only the assets of public nature are subsumed in the criminal type of embezzlement, these can also be of private origin, for this purpose Plenary Agreement N°: 1-2010/CJ-116 was used. Although this reasoning is valid, it should not have been applied in the present case. Our Supreme Court overlooked the figure of donation as a modality of transfer of property, had it been considered, it would not have been necessary to delimit whether it was a public or private property. With the legal figure of donation, it should have been understood that the property that may be of private origin, once donated, loses such quality and becomes public.
This legal report seeks to clarify the nature of the object of the crime of embezzlement. Currently, the crimes of corruption of public officials have gained relevance in the national situation, being embezzlement one of the most common. In the jurisprudence, for a long time the nature of the assets or effects on which the material action of the crime of embezzlement falls was not a matter of controversy. It was assumed that such assets had to be public, since it is a crime against the public administration; hence, if the asset was private, the argument of most of the defense of the defendants referred to the atypical nature of the conduct. However, it is as a result of the Cassatory Ruling N°. 662- 2018/Ayacucho where it is established that not only the assets of public nature are subsumed in the criminal type of embezzlement, these can also be of private origin, for this purpose Plenary Agreement N°: 1-2010/CJ-116 was used. Although this reasoning is valid, it should not have been applied in the present case. Our Supreme Court overlooked the figure of donation as a modality of transfer of property, had it been considered, it would not have been necessary to delimit whether it was a public or private property. With the legal figure of donation, it should have been understood that the property that may be of private origin, once donated, loses such quality and becomes public.
Enlace al repositorio: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/28471
Disciplina académico-profesional: Derecho
Institución que otorga el grado o título: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Derecho.
Grado o título: Abogado
Jurado: Heredia Muñoz, Ana Lucía; Rodríguez Salinas, Sergio Enrique; Valcárcel Angulo, Mariella Lenkiza
Fecha de registro: 7-ago-2024
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons