La prueba indiciaria en el delito de colusión
Files
Date
2019-11-27
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
A pesar de ser uno de los delitos contra la administración pública que ha recibido mayor
atención doctrinal, el delito de colusión no ha sido hasta ahora objeto de un análisis
detenido referido a sus particularidades probatorias. Las investigaciones que existen en la
literatura especializada abordan sus problemas dogmáticos pero, al igual que la
jurisprudencia, no profundizan demasiado sobre qué pautas seguir para considerar
probada la concertación, más allá de señalar que la prueba indiciaria juega un rol
fundamental.
Esta situación no ha impedido que los casos de colusión sigan ocupando un lugar
importante tanto a nivel de carga procesal de las Fiscalías Anticorrupción, como en el
imaginario colectivo de la sociedad (debido a la alta percepción que existe de corrupción
en las compras estatales). Sin embargo, en ausencia de parámetros claros se han emitido
varias resoluciones con importantes defectos en la argumentación para determinar los
hechos probados. Siendo esto así, la presente investigación pretende hacer un aporte a la
adecuada motivación de la valoración probatoria de dicho delito, planteando criterios que
podrían considerarse al momento de examinar los medios probatorios en función, sobre
todo, a la forma como la fiscalía sostiene que se ejecutó el acuerdo colusorio.
Con esa finalidad, el primer capítulo de la presente investigación identifica -a partir del
análisis de aproximadamente 150 resoluciones de la Corte Suprema en las que se confirma
la condena impuesta por la corte superior- los seis tipos de casos probados, o tipologías,
de colusión más recurrentes en la jurisprudencia. En el segundo, se analiza críticamente
la aplicación de la doctrina de la prueba indiciaria a dichos casos, detectando sus mayores
problemas. Y finalmente, en el tercero se proponen determinados criterios para hacer más
precisa, acertada y predecible la valoración probatoria en los mismos.
Despite being one of the offenses against the public administration that has received more attention from the academy, the crime of collusion has not been subject to a thorough analysis regarding the particular features of its proof. Existing research in the field discusses its dogmatic problems but, just as the jurisprudence, does not delve into which guidelines follow in order to demonstrate the agreement, besides pointing out that circumstantial evidence plays a fundamental role. The situation has not prevented the collusion cases from keep having a major place in the workload of the prosecution, as well as in the public imagination (due to the overall perception of corruption in public procurement). And yet, in absence of clear parameters, several rulings with important deficiencies in the reasoning to determine the proven facts have been issued. This being so, this research attempts to make a contribution to the analysis of the proof in those cases by suggesting some criteria that could be considered when assessing the circumstantial evidence. The guidelines are based mainly on the way how prosecution argues that the fraudulent agreement was fulfilled. With this purpose, the first chapter of this research identifies – after reviewing approximately 150 rulings of the Supreme Court where the convictions were affirmedsix types of cases where the crime of collusion has been usually considered proved. In the second chapter, the use of the circumstantial evidence doctrine is critically analyzed in those cases, detecting its main problems. And finally, in the third chapter specific criteria designed to improve the assessment of the evidence in collusion cases are proposed.
Despite being one of the offenses against the public administration that has received more attention from the academy, the crime of collusion has not been subject to a thorough analysis regarding the particular features of its proof. Existing research in the field discusses its dogmatic problems but, just as the jurisprudence, does not delve into which guidelines follow in order to demonstrate the agreement, besides pointing out that circumstantial evidence plays a fundamental role. The situation has not prevented the collusion cases from keep having a major place in the workload of the prosecution, as well as in the public imagination (due to the overall perception of corruption in public procurement). And yet, in absence of clear parameters, several rulings with important deficiencies in the reasoning to determine the proven facts have been issued. This being so, this research attempts to make a contribution to the analysis of the proof in those cases by suggesting some criteria that could be considered when assessing the circumstantial evidence. The guidelines are based mainly on the way how prosecution argues that the fraudulent agreement was fulfilled. With this purpose, the first chapter of this research identifies – after reviewing approximately 150 rulings of the Supreme Court where the convictions were affirmedsix types of cases where the crime of collusion has been usually considered proved. In the second chapter, the use of the circumstantial evidence doctrine is critically analyzed in those cases, detecting its main problems. And finally, in the third chapter specific criteria designed to improve the assessment of the evidence in collusion cases are proposed.
Description
Keywords
Delitos de los funcionarios--Legislación--Perú, Delitos de los funcionarios--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Derecho penal--Perú, Administración pública--Legislación--Perú, Perú. Corte Suprema
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess