{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-1011-269183", "citation": "Res. 00114-2018 Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Prescripción disciplinaria por faltas a la probidad de funcionario penitenciario", "title_en": "Disciplinary statute of limitations for prison officer probity breaches", "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo rechaza el recurso de un funcionario del Ministerio de Justicia, quien alegaba la prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria en su contra. Se le había imputado el cobro de sumas de dinero a privados de libertad a cambio de favores como participación en partidos de fútbol, agilización de visitas conyugales e informes positivos para obtener la libertad, conductas que la Administración calificó como faltas al deber de probidad, contrarias a la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito (Ley 8422). El Tribunal analiza el plazo prescriptivo aplicable y concluye que rige el canon 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República (LOCGR), que establece un lapso de cinco años. Dado que los hechos no eran notorios y requirieron investigación preliminar, la prescripción comenzó a contarse desde la fecha del informe que puso en conocimiento de la jerarquía las irregularidades (31 de enero de 2011). Ese plazo se interrumpió con la notificación al funcionario del inicio del procedimiento disciplinario el 26 de septiembre de 2011, y el acto final de despido se emitió el 23 de octubre de 2012, notificándose el 30 de ese mes. Por tanto, no transcurrieron cinco años ininterrumpidos y la acción sancionatoria no prescribió.", "summary_en": "The Court of Cassation for Contentious-Administrative Matters rejects the appeal of a Ministry of Justice officer who claimed that the disciplinary action against him had prescribed. He was accused of charging money to inmates in exchange for favors such as participation in soccer matches, expedited conjugal visits, and positive reports for early release—conduct the Administration classified as breaches of the duty of probity, in violation of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (Law 8422). The Court analyzed the applicable statute of limitations and concluded that Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (LOCGR) governs, establishing a five-year period. Since the acts were not notorious and required a preliminary investigation, the prescription period began to run from the date the investigation report was brought to the hierarchical superior's attention (January 31, 2011). This period was interrupted by the notification to the officer of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on September 26, 2011, and the final dismissal was ordered on October 23, 2012, notified on October 30. Thus, five uninterrupted years did not elapse and the disciplinary action was not time-barred.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "date": "12/09/2018", "year": "2018", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "Deber de probidad", "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito", "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria", "Hecho notorio", "Jerarca" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "article": "71", "doc_id": "norm-21629", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7428", "article": "71", "doc_id": "norm-21629", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley General de Control Interno", "article": "43", "doc_id": "norm-49185", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8292", "article": "43", "doc_id": "norm-49185", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "4", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "4", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "16", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "16", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "38", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "38", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "41", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "41", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "44", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "44", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "Prescripción disciplinaria", "Deber de probidad", "Ley contra la Corrupción", "Art. 71 LOCGR", "Funcionario público", "Ministerio de Justicia", "Centro penitenciario", "Cobro a privados de libertad", "Faltas a la probidad", "Responsabilidad administrativa" ], "keywords_en": [ "Disciplinary prescription", "Duty of probity", "Anti-Corruption Law", "Art. 71 LOCGR", "Public official", "Ministry of Justice", "Prison", "Charging inmates", "Probity breaches", "Administrative liability" ], "excerpt_es": "“En tal sentido, es evidente que el plazo quinquenal que establece el numeral 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, no fue superado y; por ende la acción sancionatoria no está prescrita. De tal manera que su reparo deberá denegarse”.", "excerpt_en": "“In this sense, it is evident that the five-year period established by Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic was not exceeded; therefore, the disciplinary action is not time-barred. Consequently, its claim must be denied.”", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Court denied the cassation appeal and confirmed that the statute of limitations had not run, upholding the dismissal sanction.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal rechazó el recurso de casación y confirmó la improcedencia de la prescripción alegada, manteniendo la sanción de despido." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "the statute of limitations for the administrative liability of a public official for violations contemplated in that law, as well as the regulations concerning Public Finance, shall be governed, according to Article 43 of the General Law of Internal Control and Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic", "quote_es": "la prescripción de la responsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las infracciones previstas en esa ley, así como del ordenamiento relativo a la Hacienda Pública, prescribirá, según el artículo 43 de la Ley General del Control Interno y el canon 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República" }, { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "the five-year period established by Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic was not exceeded; therefore the disciplinary action is not time-barred", "quote_es": "el plazo quinquenal que establece el numeral 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, no fue superado y; por ende la acción sancionatoria no está prescrita" } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-21629", "citation": "Ley 7428", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "doc_type": "law", "date": "07/09/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "id": "norm-49185", "citation": "Ley 8292", "title_en": "General Law on Internal Control", "title_es": "Ley General de Control Interno", "doc_type": "law", "date": "31/07/2002", "year": "2002" }, { "id": "norm-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-21629", "citation": "Ley 7428", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "doc_type": "law", "date": "07/09/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "id": "norm-49185", "citation": "Ley 8292", "title_en": "General Law on Internal Control", "title_es": "Ley General de Control Interno", "doc_type": "law", "date": "31/07/2002", "year": "2002" }, { "id": "norm-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-21629", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República" }, { "target_id": "norm-49185", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley General de Control Interno" }, { "target_id": "norm-53738", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-1011-892272", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-1011-892272" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-1011-269183", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [ { "art_num": "71", "art_scij": "112684", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-21629", "norm_fecha": "07 Sep 1994", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "norm_num": "7428", "norm_ver": "114407", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "43", "art_scij": "44", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-49185", "norm_fecha": "31 Jul 2002", "norm_name": "Ley General de Control Interno", "norm_num": "8292", "norm_ver": "52569", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "3", "art_scij": "4", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_fecha": "06 Oct 2004", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "116549", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "4", "art_scij": "5", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_fecha": "06 Oct 2004", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "116549", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "16", "art_scij": "17", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_fecha": "06 Oct 2004", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "116549", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "38", "art_scij": "39", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_detalle": "Inciso a), c), m)", "norm_fecha": "06 Oct 2004", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "116549", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "41", "art_scij": "42", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_detalle": "Inciso a), c), m)", "norm_fecha": "06 Oct 2004", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "116549", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "44", "art_scij": "45", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_detalle": "Inciso a), c), m)", "norm_fecha": "06 Oct 2004", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "116549", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-21629", "norm_num": "7428", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "07/09/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-49185", "norm_num": "8292", "norm_name": "Ley General de Control Interno", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "31/07/2002" }, { "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "06/10/2004" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [ "sen-1-1011-892272" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Faltas al deber de probidad por cobro de sumas a privados de libertad a cambio de favores de índole diversa" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Prescripción" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Prescripción de faltas consistentes en cobro de sumas a privados de libertad" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Deber de probidad en la función pública" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"VII.- En\n primer lugar corresponde resolver, cuál es el plazo prescriptivo \naplicable. Tal y como lo mencionan los juzgadores, las faltas que se le \nendilgan al señor [Nombre 001]\n son faltas a la probidad en la función pública, pues se le reprochó el \ncobro de sumas a privados de libertad a cambio de favores de diversa \níndole, aprovechándose de su puesto y su condición, para afectar a una \npoblación en estado de vulnerabilidad. Es por ello, que en sede \nadministrativa se consideró había actuado contrario al ordenamiento \njurídico y en específico en contravención con lo estipulado en el \nartículo 3 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción. Esta ley señala como uno de \nsus fines el sancionar la corrupción en el ejercicio de la función \npública, asimismo, el numeral cuatro ídem, indica que la violación al \ndeber de probidad, constituirá justa causa para la separación del cargo \npúblico sin responsabilidad patronal. Además agrega el canon 16 de esa \nley, la prohibición de percibir cualquier emolumento, honorario, \nestipendio o salario por parte de personas físicas y jurídicas, \nnacionales o extranjeras, en razón del cumplimiento de sus funciones o \ncon ocasión de estas, en el país o fuera de él. El artículo 38 ídem \nestablece las causales de responsabilidad administrativa, y que para lo \nque al caso interesa hace referencia a situaciones como las siguientes, \nincisos: a) se incumpla el régimen de prohibiciones e incompatibilidades\n establecidos en esa ley. c) Se favorezca por personas físicas o \njurídicas que sean usuarios de la entidad donde presta servicios. m) \nPerciba, por sí o persona física o jurídica interpuesta, retribuciones, \nhonorarios o beneficios patrimoniales de cualquier índole, provenientes \nde personas u organizaciones que no pertenezcan a la Administración \nPública, por el cumplimiento de labores propias del cargo o con ocasión \nde estas, dentro del país o fuera de él. En igual sentido, el precepto \n41 de esa ley, establece que las sanciones serán impuestas por las \ninfracciones tipificadas en ese cuerpo normativo, que hayan sido \ncometidas con dolo o culpa grave; debiéndose valorar la conducta tomando\n en cuenta diversos factores, que para el caso de estudio interesan los \nacápites: b- el éxito obtenido en el logro de los resultados no deseados\n por el ordenamiento jurídico o en el enriquecimiento o favorecimiento \ndel autor de la infracción o de terceros, así como el empeño puesto en \nprocurarlos. c) El impacto negativo en el servicio público. Así, en ese \nsentido el canon 44 ibídem, establece sobre la prescripción de la \nresponsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las \ninfracciones previstas en esa ley, así como del ordenamiento relativo a \nla Hacienda Pública, prescribirá, según el artículo 43 de la Ley General\n del Control Interno y el canon 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría \nGeneral de la República, este último, textualmente dispone: “Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria.\n La responsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las \ninfracciones previstas en esta Ley en el ordenamiento de control y \nfiscalización superiores, prescribirá de acuerdo a las siguientes \nreglas: a) En los casos en que el hecho irregular sea notorio, la \nresponsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir del \nacaecimiento del hecho. b) En los casos en que el hecho irregular no sea\n notorio –entendiendo este como aquel hecho que requiere una indagación o\n estudio de auditoría para informar de su posible irregularidad- la \nresponsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir de la fecha\n en que el informe sobre la indagación o la auditoría respectiva se \nponga en conocimiento del jerarca o el funcionario competente para dar \ninicio al procedimiento respectivo./ La\n prescripción se interrumpirá, con efectos continuados, por la \nnotificación al presunto responsable del acto que acuerde el inicio del \nprocedimiento administrativo.\n […]”. Entonces, conforme a las disposiciones legales indicadas, no hay \nincertidumbre para esta Cámara, que el plazo a aplicar es el estipulado \nen esta norma recién transcrita, pues no solo contempla los casos que se\n traten de fondos públicos o transgresiones a la Hacienda Pública, sino \ntambién, los supuestos previstos y ya mencionados, en la Ley Contra la \nCorrupción. Incluso este Tribunal de Casación en ocasión anterior \nsostuvo: “Se\n observa la casacionista alega no le es aplicable el plazo prescriptivo \ndel canon 71 de la LOCGR, sino el del artículo 603 del Código de \nTrabajo, en el tanto no es funcionaria de la Hacienda Pública. Tal y \ncomo se expresó en el considerando V, el elemento subjetivo se configura\n con la sola condición de funcionario público, sin que resulte de \nimportancia se le califique como de la Hacienda Pública. Por demás, se \ninsiste, el incumplimiento que le fue achacado es con respecto de normas\n jurídicas de la contratación administrativa, integrantes de la Hacienda\n Pública. En consecuencia, la regla aplicable a la prescripción es \nprecisamente la especial contenida en mandato 71 referido\n […]”. Resolución de las 14 horas 15 minutos del 7 de noviembre de 2017,\n que responde al voto número 131. En el presente caso, no cabe ninguna \nduda que el plazo prescriptivo es de cinco años, y procede determinar en\n cuál de los dos supuestos del numeral 71 de cita, se está. Según consta\n en el expediente administrativo, tomo I, el cual en su totalidad trata \nsobre la investigación preliminar que se llevó a cabo en el caso del \nfuncionario cuestionado, a partir del folio 3, se encuentra la denuncia \ndel privado de libertad Damas Vega Atencio, fechada 25 de febrero de 2010,\n quien se refiere a irregularidades que se están dando en el Centro \nPenitenciario, dentro de lo cual menciona al aquí actor. Ello genera que\n se inicie una investigación preliminar por parte del Ministerio de \nJusticia, que empieza con la entrevista al denunciante el 24 de marzo de\n ese mismo año e incluso se realizó un informe policial por parte del \nOIJ. Según consta a folio 58 del expediente, mediante oficio 88-2010 del 31 de enero de 2011,\n la Dirección Jurídica de Procedimientos Administrativos del Ministerio \nde Justicia y Paz, emite el Informe de Investigación Preliminar en donde\n concluye haber sido verificado el pago al accionante, quien valiéndose \nde su puesto cobraba para que los privados de libertad pudieran \nparticipar en partidos de fútbol; asimismo, cobraba por adelantar \nespacios para la visita conyugal con ayuda de la funcionaria Nuria \nDurán, quien era la trabajadora social del lugar; también en contubernio\n con el funcionario orientador Javier Salazar Artavia, cobraban para \nemitir a favor de los privados de libertad un informe positivo para que \nlograran salir de prisión. En virtud de ello, el Ministro de Justicia \ninicia gestión de despido contra [Nombre 001], la cual es recibida por la Dirección General de Servicio Civil el 23 de septiembre de 2011, según se desprende del folio primero del tomo II del expediente administrativo. En resolución AJD-RES-438-2011 del 23 de septiembre de 2011,\n emitida por la Dirección General de Servicio Civil. Asesoría Jurídica, \nconstante a pliego 23 de ese mismo tomo II, se tuvo por instaurado el \nprocedimiento disciplinario en contra del actor, el cual le fue \nnotificado el 26 de septiembre 2011, según consta a folio 31. En virtud de lo cual el Tribunal de Servicio Civil emitió la resolución número 11898 del 26 de marzo de 2012,\n constante a folio 349 del tomo III del expediente administrativo, en \ndonde declaró con lugar la gestión, en consecuencia autorizó al Poder \nEjecutivo para despedir al servidor. Lo que le fue notificado al \nfuncionario el 26 de marzo de 2012 (folio 361) y que con posterioridad \napeló. El Tribunal Administrativo del Servicio Civil, mediante \nresolución número 36-2012-TASC del 12 de septiembre de 2012,\n ver página 425, rechazó el recurso de apelación y confirmó lo resuelto \npor el Tribunal de Servicio Civil. Asimismo, según consta a folio 1 del \nexpediente principal, el 23 de octubre de 2012, mediante oficio DMJ-851-10-2012, el Ministro ordenó la ejecución del despido del actor. Lo que le fue notificado el 30 de octubre de 2012, mediante documento DGIRH-PGAL-435-12.\n Así entonces, está claro en este caso, ha de aplicarse lo estipulado en\n el acápite b) del numeral 71 de referencia, por haber mediado una \ninvestigación preliminar para poder determinar lo que había sucedido. \nEllo implica, el plazo prescriptivo inicia a partir de que el informe se\n puso en conocimiento del jerarca, lo que en el particular no tiene \nfecha cierta, sin embargo, se toma como tal la data del informe, por ser\n beneficioso para el actor, sea el 31 de enero de 2011. Ahora bien, de \nallí se inicia el conteo, pero este lapso prescriptivo fue interrumpido \ncon la notificación realizada al actor, sobre el procedimiento \nadministrativo iniciado en su contra, la cual se llevó a cabo el 26 de \nseptiembre de 2011. El acto administrativo final de ejecución de despido\n fue emitido por el Ministro en oficio DMJ-851-10-2012 del 23 de octubre\n de 2012 y notificado al accionante el 30 de octubre siguiente. En tal \nsentido, es evidente que el plazo quinquenal que establece el numeral 71\n de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, no fue \nsuperado y; por ende la acción sancionatoria no está prescrita. De tal \nmanera que su reparo deberá denegarse\".", "body_en_text": "**VII.-** First, it is necessary to determine which statute of limitations (plazo prescriptivo) is applicable. As mentioned by the lower court judges, the offenses attributed to Mr. [Name 001] are breaches of the duty of probity in public office, as he was accused of charging sums to prisoners in exchange for various types of favors, taking advantage of his position and status to harm a vulnerable population. For this reason, the administrative body considered that he had acted contrary to the legal system and specifically in contravention of the provisions of Article 3 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción. This law establishes as one of its purposes the sanctioning of corruption in the exercise of public office; likewise, Article 4 thereof indicates that a violation of the duty of probity shall constitute just cause for separation from public office without employer liability. Furthermore, Article 16 of that law adds the prohibition against receiving any emolument (emolumento), honorarium (honorario), stipend (estipendio), or salary from natural or legal persons, national or foreign, by reason of or on the occasion of the performance of his duties, within the country or abroad. Article 38 thereof establishes the grounds for administrative liability, and for the purposes of this case, refers to situations such as the following subsections: a) failing to comply with the regime of prohibitions and incompatibilities established in that law. c) Accepting favors from natural or legal persons who are users of the entity where he provides services. m) Receiving, for himself or through an intermediary natural or legal person, remuneration (retribuciones), fees, or financial benefits of any kind, from persons or organizations not belonging to the Public Administration, for the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof, within the country or abroad. In the same vein, Article 41 of that law establishes that sanctions will be imposed for infractions typified in that normative body, which have been committed with intent (dolo) or gross negligence (culpa grave); the conduct must be evaluated taking into account various factors, of which the following subsections are relevant to this case: b- the success achieved in attaining the results undesirable to the legal system or in the enrichment or benefit of the perpetrator of the infraction or third parties, as well as the effort exerted to achieve them. c) The negative impact on the public service. Thus, in this regard, Article 44 ibidem establishes that the statute of limitations for the administrative liability of the public official for infractions provided for in that law, as well as in legislation relating to the Hacienda Pública, shall expire, according to Article 43 of the Ley General del Control Interno and Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, the latter of which literally provides: \"*Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability (Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria). The administrative liability of the public official for infractions provided for in this Law within the superior control and oversight system shall prescribe according to the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—this being understood as an act that requires an inquiry or audit study to report its possible irregularity—liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective inquiry or audit is made known to the head of the entity or the official competent to initiate the respective procedure./ The statute of limitations shall be interrupted, with continuing effects, by the notification to the alleged responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. [...]”*. Therefore, according to the legal provisions indicated, there is no uncertainty for this Chamber that the term to be applied is the one stipulated in this recently transcribed rule, since it not only contemplates cases involving public funds or transgressions against the Hacienda Pública, but also the cases provided for and already mentioned in the Ley Contra la Corrupción. This Court of Cassation (Tribunal de Casación) even held on a prior occasion: \"*It is observed that the appellant argues that the prescriptive period of Article 71 of the LOCGR does not apply to her, but rather that of Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), insofar as she is not an official of the Hacienda Pública. As stated in Considerando V, the subjective element is configured by the mere condition of being a public official, without it being relevant that she be classified as belonging to the Hacienda Pública. Moreover, it must be reiterated, the breach attributed to her is with respect to legal norms of administrative procurement, which form part of the Hacienda Pública. Consequently, the rule applicable to the statute of limitations is precisely the special one contained in the aforementioned Article 71 [...]”*. Decision of 2:15 p.m. on November 7, 2017, corresponding to vote number 131. In the present case, there is no doubt that the prescriptive period is five years, and it is appropriate to determine which of the two cases of the cited Article 71 applies. As recorded in the administrative file, Volume I, which deals entirely with the preliminary investigation carried out in the case of the questioned official, beginning at folio 3, there is the complaint by prisoner Damas Vega Atencio, dated **25 de febrero de 2010**, who refers to irregularities occurring in the Penitentiary Center (Centro Penitenciario), within which he mentions the plaintiff herein. This leads to the initiation of a preliminary investigation (investigación preliminar) by the Ministry of Justice, which begins with the interview of the complainant on March 24 of that same year, and a police report was even made by the OIJ. As recorded at folio 58 of the file, through official communication **88-2010** of **31 de enero de 2011**, the Legal Directorate of Administrative Procedures of the Ministry of Justice and Peace issued the Preliminary Investigation Report, concluding that payment to the plaintiff had been verified, who, using his position, charged money so that prisoners could participate in soccer games; likewise, he charged for advancing slots for conjugal visits with the help of official Nuria Durán, who was the social worker of the place; also, in collusion with the orientation official Javier Salazar Artavia, they charged to issue a positive report in favor of the prisoners so they could leave prison. By virtue thereof, the Minister of Justice initiated dismissal proceedings against [Name 001], which was received by the General Directorate of Civil Service (Dirección General de Servicio Civil) on **23 de septiembre de 2011**, as seen from the first folio of Volume II of the administrative file. In resolution **AJD-RES-438-2011** of **23 de septiembre de 2011**, issued by the General Directorate of Civil Service, Legal Advisory Office, located at page 23 of that same Volume II, the disciplinary proceeding against the plaintiff was deemed to have been formally initiated, which was notified to him on **26 de septiembre 2011**, as recorded at folio 31. By virtue of this, the Civil Service Tribunal (Tribunal de Servicio Civil) issued resolution number **11898** of **26 de marzo de 2012**, located at folio 349 of Volume III of the administrative file, in which it granted the petition and consequently authorized the Executive Branch to dismiss the employee. This was notified to the official on March 26, 2012 (folio 361), and he subsequently appealed. The Administrative Tribunal of the Civil Service (Tribunal Administrativo del Servicio Civil), through resolution number **36-2012-TASC** of **12 de septiembre de 2012**, see page 425, rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal. Likewise, as recorded at folio 1 of the main file, on **23 de octubre de 2012**, through official communication **DMJ-851-10-2012**, the Minister ordered the execution of the plaintiff's dismissal. This was notified to him on **30 de octubre de 2012**, through document **DGIRH-PGAL-435-12**. Thus, it is clear in this case that the provisions of subsection b) of the referenced Article 71 must be applied, because a preliminary investigation was necessary to determine what had happened. This implies that the prescriptive period begins from the time the report was made known to the head of the entity, which in this particular case has no certain date; however, the date of the report is taken as such, as it is beneficial to the plaintiff, that is, January 31, 2011. Now, the count begins from there, but this prescriptive period was interrupted by the notification made to the plaintiff regarding the administrative proceeding initiated against him, which took place on September 26, 2011. The final administrative act of executing the dismissal was issued by the Minister in official communication DMJ-851-10-2012 of October 23, 2012, and notified to the plaintiff on October 30 following. In this sense, it is evident that the five-year term established by Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República was not exceeded; therefore, the disciplinary action is not time-barred. Consequently, his objection must be denied.\n\nJust as the judges mention, the offenses attributed to Mr. [Nombre 001] are offenses against probity in public service, since he was reproached for collecting sums from persons deprived of liberty in exchange for favors of various kinds, taking advantage of his position and status to affect a population in a state of vulnerability. For this reason, in the administrative venue it was considered that he had acted contrary to the legal system and specifically in contravention of the provisions of Article 3 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción. This law indicates as one of its purposes the sanctioning of corruption in the exercise of public service; likewise, numeral four of the same law indicates that the violation of the duty of probity shall constitute just cause for separation from public office without employer liability. Furthermore, canon 16 of that law adds the prohibition against receiving any emolument, fee, stipend, or salary from individuals or legal entities, national or foreign, by reason of the performance of their duties or on the occasion thereof, within the country or abroad. Article 38 of the same law establishes the grounds for administrative liability, and which for the purposes of this case refers to situations such as the following subsections: a) failure to comply with the regime of prohibitions and incompatibilities established in that law. c) Receiving favors from individuals or legal entities that are users of the entity where the person provides services. m) Receiving, personally or through an intermediary individual or legal entity, compensation, fees, or property benefits of any kind, from persons or organizations not belonging to the Public Administration, for the performance of duties inherent to the position or on the occasion thereof, within the country or abroad. In the same vein, precept 41 of that law establishes that sanctions shall be imposed for violations defined in that regulatory body committed with intent or gross negligence; conduct must be evaluated taking into account various factors, of which those relevant to the case under study are subparagraphs: b- the success obtained in achieving results not desired by the legal system or in the enrichment or favoring of the perpetrator of the violation or of third parties, as well as the effort made to obtain them. c) The negative impact on the public service. Thus, in that sense, canon 44 of the same law establishes the statute of limitations for the administrative liability of the public official for the violations provided for in that law, as well as regarding the legal framework relating to the Hacienda Pública, which shall prescribe, according to Article 43 of the Ley General del Control Interno and canon 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, the latter of which textually provides: “Prescription of disciplinary liability. The administrative liability of the public official for the violations provided for in this Law within the superior control and oversight legal framework shall prescribe according to the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious – understanding this as an act that requires an investigation or audit study to report its possible irregularity – liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective investigation or audit is made known to the hierarchical superior or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure./ Prescription shall be interrupted, with continuing effects, by the notification to the alleged responsible person of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. […]”. Therefore, in accordance with the legal provisions indicated, there is no uncertainty for this Chamber that the applicable term is the one stipulated in this just-transcribed provision, as it not only contemplates cases involving public funds or transgressions against the Hacienda Pública, but also the cases provided for and already mentioned in the Ley Contra la Corrupción. Indeed, this Court of Cassation on a prior occasion held: “It is observed that the appellant alleges that the prescriptive period of canon 71 of the LOCGR does not apply to her, but rather that of Article 603 of the Código de Trabajo, insofar as she is not an official of the Hacienda Pública. As stated in Considerando V, the subjective element is configured by the mere condition of being a public official, without it being of importance whether they are classified as pertaining to the Hacienda Pública. Furthermore, it is reiterated, the breach attributed to her was with respect to legal norms of administrative contracting, integral parts of the Hacienda Pública. Consequently, the rule applicable to prescription is precisely the special one contained in the referred-to Article 71 […]”. Decision of 2:15 p.m. on November 7, 2017, corresponding to Voto number 131. In the present case, there is no doubt that the prescriptive period is five years, and it is appropriate to determine under which of the two scenarios of the cited Article 71 this case falls. According to the administrative file, Volume I, which in its entirety deals with the preliminary investigation carried out in the case of the questioned official, starting from folio 3, there is the complaint from the person deprived of liberty Damas Vega Atencio, dated February 25, 2010, who refers to irregularities occurring in the Penitentiary Center, within which he mentions the plaintiff here. This led to the initiation of a preliminary investigation by the Ministry of Justice, beginning with the interview of the complainant on March 24 of that same year, and a police report by the OIJ was even carried out. According to folio 58 of the file, by means of official letter 88-2010 dated January 31, 2011, the Legal Directorate of Administrative Procedures of the Ministry of Justice and Peace issued the Preliminary Investigation Report, which concluded that the payment to the plaintiff had been verified, who, using his position, charged so that persons deprived of liberty could participate in soccer matches; likewise, he charged to advance spaces for conjugal visits with the help of official Nuria Durán, who was the social worker of the place; also, in collusion with the counselor official Javier Salazar Artavia, they charged to issue a positive report in favor of persons deprived of liberty so that they could be released from prison. By virtue of this, the Minister of Justice initiates a dismissal proceeding against [Nombre 001], which is received by the Dirección General de Servicio Civil on September 23, 2011, as deduced from the first folio of Volume II of the administrative file. In decision AJD-RES-438-2011 of September 23, 2011, issued by the Dirección General de Servicio Civil, Legal Advisory Office, contained at page 23 of that same Volume II, the disciplinary proceeding was deemed instituted against the plaintiff, which was notified to him on September 26, 2011, as recorded on folio 31. By virtue of which the Tribunal de Servicio Civil issued decision number 11898 of March 26, 2012, contained at folio 349 of Volume III of the administrative file, in which it declared the action well-founded and consequently authorized the Executive Branch to dismiss the employee. This was notified to the official on March 26, 2012 (folio 361) and which he subsequently appealed. The Tribunal Administrativo del Servicio Civil, by means of decision number 36-2012-TASC of September 12, 2012, see page 425, rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Tribunal de Servicio Civil. Likewise, as recorded on folio 1 of the main file, on October 23, 2012, by means of official letter DMJ-851-10-2012, the Minister ordered the enforcement of the plaintiff's dismissal. This was notified to him on October 30, 2012, via document DGIRH-PGAL-435-12. Thus then, it is clear in this case, the provision in subparagraph b) of the referenced numeral 71 must be applied, because a preliminary investigation was necessary to determine what had occurred. This implies that the prescriptive period starts from the moment the report was made known to the hierarchical superior, which in this particular case has no certain date; however, the date of the report is taken as such, being beneficial to the plaintiff, that is, January 31, 2011. Now then, the counting begins from there, but this prescriptive period was interrupted by the notification made to the plaintiff regarding the administrative proceeding initiated against him, which was carried out on September 26, 2011. The final administrative act enforcing the dismissal was issued by the Minister in official letter DMJ-851-10-2012 dated October 23, 2012, and notified to the plaintiff on the following October 30. In this sense, it is evident that the five-year period established by numeral 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República was not exceeded and, therefore, the sanctioning action is not time-barred. As such, this objection shall be denied.\"\n```" }