\u00a0 \u00a0 CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA \u00a0<\/p>\n
SALA DE CASACI\u00d3N PENAL \u00a0<\/p>\n
Magistrado Ponente: \u00a0<\/p>\n
GUSTAVO ENRIQUE MALO FERN\u00c1NDEZ \u00a0<\/p>\n
Aprobado \u00a0Acta N\u00b0 \u00a067. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Bogot\u00e1, \u00a0D.C., \u00a0cuatro de marzo de dos mil trece. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
V \u00a0I \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0O \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Decide \u00a0la \u00a0Corte \u00a0sobre \u00a0 \u00a0los \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0impedimentos \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0expresados \u00a0por \u00a0varios \u00a0de \u00a0los \u00a0Magistrados \u00a0de \u00a0la \u00a0Sala, \u00a0quienes \u00a0en \u00a0virtud \u00a0del \u00a0presente asunto \u00a0invocan \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 las \u00a0causales \u00a0 previstas \u00a0en \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 los \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0art\u00edculos \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a099 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u2013numeral \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 1\u00b0- \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 y \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0228 \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0la \u00a0 Ley \u00a0 600 de 2000. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
A \u00a0N \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0C \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0D \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0N \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
1. \u00a0El \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a023 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0octubre \u00a0de \u00a02012, \u00a0 el \u00a0apoderado \u00a0del \u00a0 ex \u00a0 congresista \u00a0H\u00c9CTOR JOS\u00c9 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0OSPINA \u00a0 \u00a0 AVIL\u00c9S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 present\u00f3 \u00a0 demanda \u00a0con \u00a0el \u00a0fin \u00a0de \u00a0promover \u00a0 \u00a0 acci\u00f3n \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 \u00a0revisi\u00f3n \u00a0en contra \u00a0de la sentencia del 16 de \u00a0diciembre \u00a0 de \u00a0 2011, \u00a0 por \u00a0 medio \u00a0 de \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 la \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 cual \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 esta \u00a0Corporaci\u00f3n \u00a0lo conden\u00f3 \u00a0como \u00a0 \u00a0autor \u00a0 \u00a0del \u00a0 \u00a0delito \u00a0 de \u00a0 concusi\u00f3n, \u00a0en \u00a0 \u00a0el \u00a0 \u00a0proceso \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 \u00a0\u00fanica \u00a0 instancia \u00a0 \u00a0Radicado \u00a0 con \u00a0el \u00a0N\u00b0 \u00a027.703. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
2. El asunto en \u00a0comento \u00a0fue \u00a0repartido al d\u00eda siguiente al despacho \u00a0del \u00a0doctor \u00a0JOSE LUIS BARCEL\u00d3 CAMACHO, de donde fue \u00a0remitido \u00a0 al \u00a0de \u00a0la \u00a0doctora \u00a0MAR\u00cdA \u00a0DEL \u00a0ROSARIO \u00a0GONZ\u00c1LEZ \u00a0MU\u00d1OZ, quien \u00a0mediante \u00a0 pronunciamiento \u00a0del \u00a019 \u00a0de \u00a0diciembre \u00a0de \u00a02012 \u00a0se \u00a0declar\u00f3 \u00a0 impedida \u00a0para \u00a0conocer \u00a0del \u00a0mismo, \u00a0aduciendo \u00a0tener \u00a0un \u00a0inter\u00e9s \u00a0dentro de la \u00a0actuaci\u00f3n \u00a0procesal, \u00a0con \u00a0fundamento en el numeral \u00a01\u00b0 \u00a0del art\u00edculo 99 del \u00a0C\u00f3digo de Procedimiento Penal de 2000. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Al \u00a0 \u00a0efecto, \u00a0 \u00a0expres\u00f3 \u00a0la \u00a0Magistrada que su \u201cex \u00a0 \u00a0c\u00f3nyuge, \u00a0 \u00a0Jes\u00fas \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Mar\u00eda \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Lemos \u00a0 Bustamante, \u00a0 suscribi\u00f3 \u00a0 la \u00a0decisi\u00f3n \u00a0signada julio 13 de 2006 mediante la cual \u00a0el \u00a0 Consejo \u00a0de \u00a0Estado \u00a0deneg\u00f3 \u00a0la \u00a0solicitud \u00a0de \u00a0p\u00e9rdida de investidura del mencionado Congresista y \u00a0dispuso \u00a0compulsar \u00a0copias ante esta Corporaci\u00f3n por \u00a0encontrar \u00a0 \u00a0que \u00a0 \u00a0los \u00a0 \u00a0hechos \u00a0 \u00a0invocados \u00a0 \u00a0como \u00a0 \u00a0causales \u00a0 pod\u00edan \u00a0configurar \u00a0 conductas \u00a0 punibles, \u00a0 situaci\u00f3n \u00a0que \u00a0condujo \u00a0 al \u00a0 procesamiento \u00a0que \u00a0culmin\u00f3 \u00a0con \u00a0la \u00a0sentencia \u00a0de \u00a0\u00fanica instancia referida\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
As\u00ed, luego de \u00a0citar \u00a0precedente \u00a0de \u00a0la Corte acerca de lo que debe entenderse por \u00a0inter\u00e9s, \u00a0recuerda \u00a0el imperativo que le asiste al funcionario \u00a0judicial \u00a0 de \u00a0 contar \u00a0 con \u00a0 total \u00a0 imparcialidad \u00a0 y \u00a0 que, \u00a0\u201cde \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0presentarse \u00a0 \u00a0 el \u00a0 \u00a0 m\u00e1s \u00a0 \u00a0 m\u00ednimo \u00a0 factor \u00a0 que \u00a0 pueda \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0empa\u00f1ar \u00a0 \u00a0 su \u00a0 \u00a0 criterio, \u00a0 \u00a0 lo \u00a0 \u00a0 procedente \u00a0 \u00a0 es \u00a0 \u00a0marginarse \u00a0del debate\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
3. \u00a0A su turno, \u00a0con \u00a0prove\u00eddo \u00a0del \u00a014 de enero del a\u00f1o \u00a0en curso, \u00a0los \u00a0 \u00a0Magistrados \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 JOS\u00c9 \u00a0LUIS \u00a0BARCEL\u00d3 \u00a0CAMACHO, \u00a0 JOS\u00c9 \u00a0LEONIDAS \u00a0 \u00a0 BUSTOS \u00a0 \u00a0 MART\u00cdNEZ, \u00a0 \u00a0FERNANDO \u00a0ALBERTO \u00a0CASTRO CABALLERO, LUIS GUILLERMO SALAZAR OTERO, \u00a0JULIO \u00a0 ENRIQUE \u00a0 SOCHA \u00a0 SALAMANCA \u00a0 y \u00a0JAVIER \u00a0DE \u00a0JES\u00daS \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ZAPATA \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0ORT\u00cdZ, tambi\u00e9n \u00a0manifestaron \u00a0 estar \u00a0 impedidos \u00a0para \u00a0conocer \u00a0del \u00a0presente \u00a0tr\u00e1mite, \u00a0aduciendo \u00a0la \u00a0causal \u00a0especial \u00a0se\u00f1alada en el art\u00edculo \u00a0228 \u00a0de \u00a0aquella codificaci\u00f3n, por haber discutido y \u00a0aprobado \u00a0 \u00a0 la \u00a0 \u00a0decisi\u00f3n \u00a0 \u00a0objeto \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 \u00a0la \u00a0acci\u00f3n \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0revisi\u00f3n. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
4. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Posteriormente, \u00a0el \u00a0asunto fue asignado a este despacho, en donde \u00a0se \u00a0orden\u00f3 conformar la \u00a0Sala con los respectivos Conjueces, el 16 de enero de 2013. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Como \u00a0 consecuencia \u00a0 de \u00a0 lo \u00a0anterior, \u00a0se \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 nombraron \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 como \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0tales, en reemplazo de los Magistrados \u00a0que \u00a0expresaron \u00a0su \u00a0impedimento, \u00a0los \u00a0doctores LUIS \u00a0BERNARDO \u00a0ALZATE \u00a0G\u00d3MEZ, \u00a0ALFONSO \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0DAZA \u00a0GONZ\u00c1LEZ, \u00a0WILLIAM \u00a0MONROY VICTORIA, RICARDO POSADA \u00a0MAYA, \u00a0YESID \u00a0REYES \u00a0ALVARADO, JULIO ANDR\u00c9S SAMPEDRO \u00a0ARRUBLA \u00a0y \u00a0YEZID \u00a0VIVEROS \u00a0CASTELLANOS, quienes \u00a0tomaron \u00a0posesi\u00f3n de su cargo. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
CONSIDERACIONES DE LA CORTE \u00a0<\/p>\n
De entrada se evidencia que los Magistrados \u00a0que \u00a0han \u00a0manifestado \u00a0su \u00a0impedimento conjunto para \u00a0conocer \u00a0 del \u00a0presente \u00a0asunto, \u00a0el \u00a016 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0diciembre \u00a0de \u00a02011 \u00a0suscribieron \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 la sentencia \u00a0mediante \u00a0la \u00a0 \u00a0cual \u00a0 \u00a0se \u00a0 conden\u00f3 \u00a0en \u00fanica instancia al ex congresista \u00a0H\u00c9CTOR \u00a0 JOS\u00c9 \u00a0OSPINA \u00a0AVIL\u00c9S, \u00a0 por \u00a0la \u00a0conducta \u00a0 punible \u00a0 de \u00a0concusi\u00f3n. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
En \u00a0 contra \u00a0de \u00a0dicha \u00a0providencia, \u00a0el \u00a0defensor \u00a0 de \u00a0 OSPINA \u00a0AVIL\u00c9S \u00a0 incoa \u00a0 la \u00a0presente \u00a0 acci\u00f3n \u00a0de \u00a0revisi\u00f3n con fundamento \u00a0en \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0la \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 causal \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 sexta \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0del \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0art\u00edculo \u00a0 220 \u00a0 de \u00a0 la \u00a0 Ley \u00a0600 \u00a0de \u00a02000, \u00a0 \u00a0es \u00a0 \u00a0decir \u00a0\u201ccuando \u00a0mediante \u00a0 pronunciamiento \u00a0 judicial, \u00a0 la \u00a0Corte \u00a0haya \u00a0cambiado \u00a0favorablemente \u00a0 el \u00a0 criterio \u00a0 jur\u00eddico \u00a0que \u00a0sirvi\u00f3 \u00a0para \u00a0sustentar la \u00a0sentencia condenatoria\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
As\u00ed las cosas, \u00a0como \u00a0est\u00e1 \u00a0claro que la \u00a0acci\u00f3n \u00a0se \u00a0dirige \u00a0en \u00a0contra \u00a0de \u00a0un \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 prove\u00eddo \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0condenatorio \u00a0 \u00a0dictado \u00a0 \u00a0por \u00a0 \u00a0la \u00a0Corte, \u00a0se \u00a0configura la \u00a0causal \u00a0 de \u00a0impedimento \u00a0especial \u00a0prevista \u00a0en \u00a0el \u00a0art\u00edculo \u00a0228 de la citada normatividad, acorde con \u00a0el \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 cual \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u201cno \u00a0podr\u00e1 \u00a0intervenir \u00a0en \u00a0el \u00a0tr\u00e1mite \u00a0y decisi\u00f3n \u00a0de \u00a0esta \u00a0acci\u00f3n ning\u00fan \u00a0 magistrado \u00a0 que \u00a0 haya \u00a0 suscrito \u00a0 la \u00a0 decisi\u00f3n objeto de la misma\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Lo \u00a0anterior, como reiteraci\u00f3n \u00a0de lo consagrado como causal general \u00a0de \u00a0impedimento \u00a0 en \u00a0el \u00a0numeral \u00a06\u00b0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 del \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 art\u00edculo \u00a0 \u00a0 99 \u00a0 \u00a0 del \u00a0 \u00a0C\u00f3digo \u00a0de Procedimiento Penal \u00a0 \u00a0 de \u00a0 \u00a0 2000, \u00a0 \u00a0el \u00a0 \u00a0cual \u00a0prev\u00e9 \u00a0que \u00a0la \u00a0misma \u00a0se configura \u201ccuando \u00a0el funcionario haya dictado la providencia cuya \u00a0revisi\u00f3n \u00a0se \u00a0trata\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
En \u00a0este caso, no sobra anotar, se aplican \u00a0las \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0normas \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0respectivas \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0de \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0la \u00a0codificaci\u00f3n procesal penal de 2000, por ser la que \u00a0rigi\u00f3 \u00a0el \u00a0presente \u00a0asunto, \u00a0si bien los preceptos \u00a0invocados \u00a0al manifestarse la causal impeditiva, fueron reiterados en las normas \u00a0que se citan de la Ley 906 de 2004. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Lo \u00a0anterior \u00a0significa \u00a0que \u00a0le asiste \u00a0raz\u00f3n \u00a0a los Magistrados \u00a0que \u00a0 han \u00a0 exteriorizado \u00a0 su \u00a0 impedimento \u00a0 para \u00a0 conocer \u00a0 de \u00a0la \u00a0presente \u00a0acci\u00f3n \u00a0de \u00a0revisi\u00f3n, \u00a0situaci\u00f3n \u00a0que, \u00a0por \u00a0lo \u00a0tanto, \u00a0impone aceptar la \u00a0declaraci\u00f3n \u00a0conjunta \u00a0que \u00a0en \u00a0tal \u00a0sentido \u00a0 \u00a0 han \u00a0 \u00a0 emitido, \u00a0 \u00a0 con \u00a0 \u00a0 base \u00a0 \u00a0 en \u00a0 \u00a0los \u00a0citados \u00a0preceptos. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ya \u00a0 en \u00a0 lo \u00a0 que \u00a0 respecta \u00a0 a \u00a0 la \u00a0declaraci\u00f3n \u00a0 \u00a0 de \u00a0impedimento \u00a0 expresada \u00a0 insularmente \u00a0 por \u00a0 la \u00a0Magistrada \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0GONZ\u00c1LEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 MU\u00d1OZ, \u00a0basta \u00a0decir \u00a0que \u00a0de \u00a0acuerdo \u00a0con \u00a0las constancias \u00a0secretariales \u00a0allegadas a la presente actuaci\u00f3n, se \u00a0ha \u00a0verificado \u00a0que \u00a0desde \u00a0la \u00a0fase \u00a0instructiva del \u00a0proceso \u00a0 adelantado \u00a0 en \u00a0 contra \u00a0 del \u00a0demandante \u00a0en \u00a0revisi\u00f3n, se reconoci\u00f3 \u00a0 que \u00a0 la \u00a0 funcionaria \u00a0 se \u00a0encuentra \u00a0incursa \u00a0en \u00a0la \u00a0causal \u00a0impeditiva. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Por \u00a0 tal \u00a0motivo, \u00a0 entonces, \u00a0 se \u00a0 ratificar\u00e1 \u00a0 esa \u00a0 situaci\u00f3n, \u00a0lo \u00a0cual \u00a0quiere \u00a0significar \u00a0 que \u00a0se \u00a0atender\u00e1 \u00a0favorablemente \u00a0su \u00a0solicitud, \u00a0separ\u00e1ndosele \u00a0del conocimiento del presente asunto. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
En \u00a0m\u00e9rito \u00a0de lo expuesto, la \u00a0Corte \u00a0Suprema de Justicia, Sala de \u00a0Casaci\u00f3n Penal, \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
R \u00a0E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 U \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 L \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 V \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 E \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
ACEPTAR \u00a0los \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0impedimentos \u00a0expresados \u00a0por \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 los \u00a0Magistrados \u00a0JOS\u00c9 \u00a0LUIS \u00a0BARCEL\u00d3 \u00a0CAMACHO, \u00a0JOS\u00c9 \u00a0LEONIDAS \u00a0BUSTOS \u00a0MART\u00cdNEZ, \u00a0FERNANDO ALBERTO CASTRO \u00a0CABALLERO, \u00a0 LUIS \u00a0GUILLERMO \u00a0SALAZAR \u00a0OTERO, \u00a0JULIO \u00a0ENRIQUE \u00a0SOCHA \u00a0SALAMANCA, \u00a0JAVIER \u00a0DE JES\u00daS ZAPATA \u00a0ORT\u00cdZ \u00a0\u2013de \u00a0manera \u00a0conjunta-, \u00a0y \u00a0MAR\u00cdA \u00a0DEL \u00a0ROSARIO \u00a0GONZ\u00c1LEZ \u00a0MU\u00d1OZ \u00a0\u2013en \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0forma \u00a0individual-, \u00a0a \u00a0quienes, \u00a0en \u00a0consecuencia, \u00a0se les \u00a0separa del conocimiento del asunto. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Comun\u00edquese y c\u00famplase. \u00a0<\/p>\n
GUSTAVO ENRIQUE MALO FERN\u00c1NDEZ \u00a0<\/p>\n
Magistrado \u00a0<\/p>\n
LUIS \u00a0BERNARDO \u00a0ALZATE \u00a0G\u00d3MEZ \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0ALFONSO DAZA GONZ\u00c1LEZ \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Conjuez \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\u00a0Conjuez \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
WILLIAM \u00a0 MONROY \u00a0 VICTORIA \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\u00a0RICARDO POSADA MAYA \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Conjuez \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\u00a0Conjuez \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
YESID \u00a0 \u00a0REYES \u00a0 \u00a0ALVARADO \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0JULIO ANDR\u00c9S SAMPEDRO ARRUBLA \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Conjuez \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\u00a0Conjuez \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
YEZID VIVEROS CASTELLANOS \u00a0<\/p>\n
Conjuez \u00a0<\/p>\n
Nubia Yolanda Nova Garc\u00eda \u00a0<\/p>\n
Secretaria \u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00a0 \u00a0 CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA \u00a0 SALA DE CASACI\u00d3N PENAL \u00a0 Magistrado Ponente: \u00a0 GUSTAVO ENRIQUE MALO FERN\u00c1NDEZ \u00a0 Aprobado \u00a0Acta N\u00b0 \u00a067. \u00a0\u00a0 Bogot\u00e1, \u00a0D.C., \u00a0cuatro de marzo de dos mil trece. \u00a0\u00a0 V \u00a0I \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0S \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0T \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-21"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26128","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=26128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salapenalcronologico20230723\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}