\u00a0 \u00a0 Proceso No 26440 \u00a0<\/p>\n
CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0SALA \u00a0 \u00a0DE \u00a0 \u00a0CASACI\u00d3N \u00a0PENAL \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Magistrado Ponente: \u00a0<\/p>\n
JAVIER ZAPATA ORTIZ \u00a0<\/p>\n
Aprobado Acta No. 102 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Bogot\u00e1 \u00a0D. \u00a0C., veinte (20) de junio de dos \u00a0mil siete (2007) \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
El \u00a0 Magistrado \u00a0MAURO \u00a0SOLARTE \u00a0PORTILLA, \u00a0manifiesta \u00a0su \u00a0impedimento para conocer del presente asunto, de conformidad con \u00a0lo \u00a0prescrito \u00a0en \u00a0el \u00a0art\u00edculo \u00a099, \u00a0numeral 5 de la Ley 600 de 2000, dado que \u00a0siempre \u00a0ha \u00a0mantenido una estrecha amistad\u00a0 con el doctor GUILLERMO PUYANA \u00a0MUTIS, \u00a0quien \u00a0act\u00faa \u00a0como \u00a0apoderado \u00a0del \u00a0procesado, \u00a0Guillermo Hernando Romo \u00a0Insuasty. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
CONSIDERACIONES \u00a0DE \u00a0LA \u00a0SALA \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
La \u00a0Ley \u00a0600 \u00a0de \u00a02000, art\u00edculo 99, numeral \u00a05,\u00a0 \u00a0consagra como causal de impedimento la existencia de amistad \u00edntima o \u00a0enemistad \u00a0 grave \u00a0 entre \u00a0alguno \u00a0de \u00a0los \u00a0sujetos \u00a0procesales, \u00a0denunciante \u00a0o \u00a0perjudicado \u00a0 y \u00a0 el \u00a0funcionario \u00a0judicial,\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0lo \u00a0cual \u00a0reviste \u00a0una \u00a0garant\u00eda \u00a0de \u00a0seguridad \u00a0e \u00a0imparcialidad, \u00a0tanto para las partes, como para la \u00a0comunidad en general.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Frente \u00a0a \u00a0la \u00a0aceptaci\u00f3n \u00a0de \u00a0este \u00a0tipo de \u00a0impedimentos, \u00a0la \u00a0Sala \u00a0ha \u00a0adoptado un criterio amplio, pues\u00a0 s\u00f3lo exige \u00a0que \u00a0el \u00a0funcionario exprese de manera clara los fundamentos del sentimiento, en \u00a0virtud \u00a0del \u00a0cual, \u00a0su \u00a0\u00e1nimo se ver\u00eda afectado para decidir de manera libre y \u00a0espont\u00e1nea el asunto puesto a su consideraci\u00f3n. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Conforme \u00a0a \u00a0lo \u00a0expuesto,\u00a0 se acepta el \u00a0impedimento\u00a0 \u00a0manifestado \u00a0por \u00a0el Magistrado MAURO SOLARTE PORTILLA, quien \u00a0se \u00a0separa \u00a0del \u00a0conocimiento \u00a0del \u00a0proceso;\u00a0 \u00a0sin \u00a0embargo, al tenor de lo \u00a0dispuesto \u00a0en \u00a0la \u00a0Ley \u00a0Estatutaria \u00a0de \u00a0Administraci\u00f3n de Justicia, Ley 270 de \u00a01996, \u00a0art\u00edculo \u00a054, no se designa conjuez,\u00a0 toda vez que no se desintegra \u00a0el qu\u00f3rum decisorio. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
En m\u00e9rito de lo expuesto, la Corte Suprema de \u00a0Justicia, en Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Penal, \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
RESUELVE \u00a0<\/p>\n
ACEPTAR \u00a0el \u00a0impedimento \u00a0manifestado \u00a0por \u00a0el \u00a0doctor \u00a0MAURO \u00a0SOLARTE \u00a0PORTILLA; \u00a0en consecuencia, se le declara separado del \u00a0conocimiento de la presente acci\u00f3n de revisi\u00f3n. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
C\u00f3piese, \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0notif\u00edquese \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0y \u00a0c\u00famplase \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
ALFREDO \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 G\u00d3MEZ \u00a0QUINTERO\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0SIGIFREDO \u00a0 ESPINOSA \u00a0 P\u00c9REZ \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00c1LVARO \u00a0ORLANDO P\u00c9REZ PINZ\u00d3N \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0MARINA \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0PULIDO \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 DE \u00a0BAR\u00d3N\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
JORGE \u00a0LUIS \u00a0QUINTERO \u00a0MILAN\u00c9S \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0YESID \u00a0 RAM\u00cdREZ \u00a0 BASTIDAS \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
JULIO ENRIQUE SOCHA SALAMANCA \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0JAVIER ZAPATA ORTIZ \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
TERESA \u00a0 \u00a0RUIZ \u00a0N\u00da\u00d1EZ \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Secretaria \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00a0 \u00a0 Proceso No 26440 \u00a0 CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0SALA \u00a0 \u00a0DE \u00a0 \u00a0CASACI\u00d3N \u00a0PENAL \u00a0\u00a0 Magistrado Ponente: \u00a0 JAVIER ZAPATA ORTIZ \u00a0 Aprobado Acta No. 102 \u00a0 Bogot\u00e1 \u00a0D. \u00a0C., veinte (20) de junio de dos \u00a0mil siete (2007) \u00a0\u00a0 El \u00a0 Magistrado \u00a0MAURO \u00a0SOLARTE \u00a0PORTILLA, \u00a0manifiesta \u00a0su \u00a0impedimento para […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}