Summary of "Delito de Abuso de Autoridad | Luis Manuel Marcelo Ramírez Bravo"

Legal Analysis of Abuse of Authority in Peruvian Law

The video presents an extensive legal analysis of the crime of abuse of authority, focusing primarily on its definition, legal framework, typology, and practical implications within the context of Peruvian law. Special attention is given to public officials and police officers.

Key Points

1. Definition and Legal Framework

Abuse of authority involves the misuse or excessive use of powers by a public official or servant within their official functions.
The crime is mainly regulated by Article 376 of the Peruvian Penal Code and Law 28165.
These laws specify that a public official who arbitrarily commits or orders acts causing harm to others can be punished with imprisonment, generally ranging from 2 to 4 years, with aggravating factors potentially increasing penalties.
The crime aims to protect the correct functioning of public administration and justice.

2. Active and Passive Subjects

The active subject is typically a public official or servant abusing their powers.
The passive subject includes both the individual harmed and the State.
A distinction is made between:
- Public officials: Higher rank, political or leadership roles.
- Public servants: Administrative roles with less discretion.

3. Governing Verbs and Crime Structure

Two key verbs govern the crime: “to commit” and “to order” an arbitrary act.
The crime requires:
- An arbitrary act that causes harm.
- The act must be committed intentionally, with knowledge of its illegality.
The theory of crime elements applies: action, unlawfulness, culpability, and punishability.

4. Examples and Case Studies

Common examples include:
- Police officers making illegal arrests without warrants.
- Use of excessive force.
- Conducting raids without proper authority.
Specific cases discussed:
- Police officers in Trujillo involved in bribery and abuse of authority.
- A lieutenant in Arequipa ordering subordinates into unsafe situations.
- The “Inti and Brian” case, highlighting police abuse during pandemic-related protests, leading to prosecutions for abuse of authority.
- The “abandoned drunk” case in Libertad, illustrating usurpation of functions by individuals pretending to be officials.

5. Legal Loopholes and Challenges

The law mainly sanctions public officials, often excluding public servants, creating gaps in accountability.
Challenges arise when public servants knowingly execute illegal orders but lack authority themselves.
Distinction between ordering and committing the act is crucial in investigations.
The crime of disobedience is relevant when subordinates refuse illegal orders knowingly.
Military and police personnel have separate disciplinary and judicial processes with distinct regulations.

6. Administrative vs. Criminal Abuse of Authority

Abuse can occur in administrative contexts, such as unjustified dismissals or workplace abuses within state entities.
Abuse of authority in police and military contexts involves command power and can cause harm to third parties.

7. Procedural and Jurisprudential Aspects

The Supreme Court has established unified criteria and jurisprudence to standardize interpretation and application of the crime.
The crime can be in attempt or consummated stages, depending on whether the arbitrary act was completed.
Investigations focus on the functional role, knowledge, and intent of the accused.
The prosecution must establish a causal link between the abuse and the harm caused.

8. Rights and Limitations

Police and officials must be aware of their internal regulations and act within their legal limits.
Arbitrary acts lack legitimacy and uniform criteria.
Illegal entries without warrants violate constitutional rights and constitute abuse of authority.
Victims have the right to report abuses and seek redress.

9. Q&A Highlights

Inspectors acting on their own initiative may not commit abuse of authority if acting within their preventive or sanctioning roles.
Public servants can be held responsible as accomplices if they knowingly participate in illegal acts.
Differences between officials and public servants hinge on rank, functions, and appointment methods.
Military disciplinary actions differ from criminal proceedings under Article 376.
Illegal police entries into homes without warrants are abuse of authority and violate fundamental rights.

Presenters and Contributors

Luis Manuel Marcelo Ramírez Bravo – Main presenter and legal expert delivering the lecture.
Dr. Joaquín – Contributor referenced for comments on ignorance of duties.
Dr. Mónica – Asked about prosecutorial cooperation and investigation.
Dr. Rómulo – Asked about distinctions between officials and public servants.
Jorge Luis – Military personnel asking about disciplinary sanctions.
Enrique – Asked about illegal police entry into private homes.
Jefferson – Asked about inspectors acting without warrants.
Manuel – Asked about liability of public servants as accomplices.
Robert Alexis – Commented on principles vs. norms in legal interpretation.
Dr. Mas Puxo – Commented on identification of active and passive subjects in abuse of authority.

This summary encapsulates the detailed legal discussion on abuse of authority, emphasizing the crime’s regulatory framework, practical examples, challenges in prosecution, and distinctions between roles within public administration.