El requisito de procedibilidad en el peculado
Loading...
Date
2020
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
PUCE - Ibarra
Abstract
La acción penal pública es ejercida por parte de la Fiscalía General del Estado al momento de conocer el cometimiento de un delito ya sea por denuncia u oficio, esto con el fin de procesar penalmente a una persona. Sin embargo, con la emisión de la Resolución de 24 de febrero de 2010 emitida por la Corte Nacional de Justicia y publicada en el Registro Oficial No. 154 de 19 de marzo de 2010, la Contraloría General del Estado debía emitir un informe con indicios de responsabilidad penal de una persona, en calidad de requisito de procedibilidad para que la Fiscalía pueda iniciar un proceso con base en sus competencias y facultades investigativas. Por ello esta investigación buscó identificar la pertinencia del informe emitido por el organismo de control, como un requisito indispensable para que la Fiscalía General del Estado inicie una investigación penal en contra de una persona que se presume cometió el delito de peculado. A través del método inductivo y exegético, se revisó y analizó la normativa penal y procesal correspondiente, conjuntamente con los fallos emitidos dentro de los procesos que buscaron suprimir esta figura jurídica en la etapa procesal que la Resolución mencionada ut supra la estableció, de igual manera se analizaron los criterios de varios autores ecuatorianos que trataron esta problemática en referencia a los efectos jurídicos que esta Resolución pudo conllevar respecto a la imprescriptibilidad de la acción y la pena. Llegando a la conclusión de que el informe con indicios de responsabilidad penal emitido por la Contraloría General del Estado pudo influir en la prescripción de la acción impulsada por la Fiscalía y la prescripción de la pena, así lo confirmó la Corte Constitucional a través de la Sentencia 5-13/N19 y acumulados mencionando que este informe vinculante podría ser considerado como una intromisión y una traba a las competencias de la Fiscalía.
Public criminal action is exercised by the State Attorney General's Office at the time of knowing the committing of a crime, either by complaint or office, this in order to criminally prosecute a person. However, with the issuance of the Resolution of February 24, 2010 issued by the National Court of Justice and published in Official Gazette No. 154 of March 19, 2010, the Comptroller General of the State had to issue a report with indications of criminal responsibility of a person, as a procedural requirement for the Prosecutor's Office to initiate a process based on its powers and investigative powers. Therefore, this investigation sought to identify the relevance of the report issued by the control body, as an essential requirement for the State Attorney General's Office to initiate a criminal investigation against a person who is presumed to have committed the crime of embezzlement. Accordingly, the corresponding criminal and procedural regulations were reviewed and analyzed, together with the rulings issued within the processes that sought to suppress this legal figure in the procedural stage that the aforementioned Resolution ut supra established, in the same way it was reviewed and analyzed the criteria of several Ecuadorian authors who dealt with this problem in reference to the legal effects that this Resolution could entail regarding the imprescriptibility of the action and the penalty. Concluding that the report with indications of criminal responsibility issued by the State Comptroller General's Office could influence the prescription of the action brought by the Prosecutor's Office and the prescription of the penalty, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court through the Sentence 5-13 / N19 and accumulated, mentioning that this binding report could be considered an interference and an obstacle to the powers of the Prosecutor's Office.
Public criminal action is exercised by the State Attorney General's Office at the time of knowing the committing of a crime, either by complaint or office, this in order to criminally prosecute a person. However, with the issuance of the Resolution of February 24, 2010 issued by the National Court of Justice and published in Official Gazette No. 154 of March 19, 2010, the Comptroller General of the State had to issue a report with indications of criminal responsibility of a person, as a procedural requirement for the Prosecutor's Office to initiate a process based on its powers and investigative powers. Therefore, this investigation sought to identify the relevance of the report issued by the control body, as an essential requirement for the State Attorney General's Office to initiate a criminal investigation against a person who is presumed to have committed the crime of embezzlement. Accordingly, the corresponding criminal and procedural regulations were reviewed and analyzed, together with the rulings issued within the processes that sought to suppress this legal figure in the procedural stage that the aforementioned Resolution ut supra established, in the same way it was reviewed and analyzed the criteria of several Ecuadorian authors who dealt with this problem in reference to the legal effects that this Resolution could entail regarding the imprescriptibility of the action and the penalty. Concluding that the report with indications of criminal responsibility issued by the State Comptroller General's Office could influence the prescription of the action brought by the Prosecutor's Office and the prescription of the penalty, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court through the Sentence 5-13 / N19 and accumulated, mentioning that this binding report could be considered an interference and an obstacle to the powers of the Prosecutor's Office.
Description
Keywords
Procedibilidad, Requisito, Peculado, Control