La conducta de omisión impropia del funcionario público jerárquicamente superior en el delito de colusión
Date
2025-01-17
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
El presente artículo pretende demostrar que el funcionario público jerárquicamente superior
que incumple su deber de vigilancia es autor del delito de colusión en comisión por omisión.
Para tal fin, identificamos que una conducta omisiva se corresponde en valor a una comisiva
con el incumplimiento de un deber especial de garante. Constatamos que los delitos de
infracción de deber atribuyen el título de autor a quien incumple este deber especial. Siguiendo
tal encuadre, justificamos la posición de garante del funcionario superior que interviene en un
procedimiento de contratación y detallamos el conjunto de obligaciones que dimanan de su
deber de vigilancia. Siguiendo esa lógica, ponderamos el delito de colusión como un delito de
infracción de deber y de mera actividad. Dicho análisis nos permitió concluir que el
incumplimiento del deber ex ante del superior de acceder a información se corresponde en
valor a la conducta de concertación de su subordinado.
This article aims to demonstrate that a superior public official who fails in their duty of oversight is liable as the perpetrator of collusion through commission by omission. To this end, we identify that an omission equates in value to a commission when there is a breach of a special duty of guarantor. We establish that offenses involving breach of duty attribute the title of perpetrator to those who fail in this special duty. Within this framework, we justify the guarantor position of the superior official involved in a procurement procedure and outline the set of obligations stemming from their duty of oversight. Following this logic, we assess collusion as an offense of breach of duty and mere activity. This analysis led us to conclude that the failure of the superior's duty to access information ex ante equates in value to the conduct of collusion by their subordinate.
This article aims to demonstrate that a superior public official who fails in their duty of oversight is liable as the perpetrator of collusion through commission by omission. To this end, we identify that an omission equates in value to a commission when there is a breach of a special duty of guarantor. We establish that offenses involving breach of duty attribute the title of perpetrator to those who fail in this special duty. Within this framework, we justify the guarantor position of the superior official involved in a procurement procedure and outline the set of obligations stemming from their duty of oversight. Following this logic, we assess collusion as an offense of breach of duty and mere activity. This analysis led us to conclude that the failure of the superior's duty to access information ex ante equates in value to the conduct of collusion by their subordinate.
Description
Keywords
Delitos por omisión--Legislación--Perú, Derecho penal--Legislación--Perú, Delitos de los funcionarios--Perú
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