“Of the crimes related to land use planning and urban development”, is the title of the Chapter I, of the Title XVI, of the Book II, of the Spanish Penal Code (CP). Although, we have added the common dispositions, those applicable to all the crimes regulated in the Title XVI and included in its Chapter V, for completing our analysis. The Chapter I is formed by two articles and the Chapter V by three, let us now pass to study them.
– Articles of the Chapter I:
Article 319:
The article 319 is formed by four points, a first, where we can consider that we find the aggravated subtype of the crime against land use planning and urban development, a second, in which we find the basic type of the previous, a third, which regulates the possibility of the judges and courts of ordering the “restitutio in integrum” of the object of the crime by the active subject, and a fourth, extending the criminal liability to the legal persons when the rest of the conditions imposed by the article 31 are met. The article 319 says:
“Article 319.
1. Shall be imposed the punishments of imprisonment from one year and six months to four years, fine from twelve to twenty-four months, except when the benefit obtained by the crime has exceeded the resulting amount in whose case the fine shall be of three times the amount of such benefit, and special disqualification for profession or trade from one to four years, to the developers, builders or technical directors who carry out urban development works, construction or building non-authorizable on land designated for roads, green areas, public assets, or places that are legally or administratively recognized for their landscape, ecological, artistic, historical, or cultural value, or when for the same motives, they have been considered of special protection.
2. Shall be imposed the punishment of imprisonment from one to three years, fine from twelve to twenty-four months, save when the benefit obtained by the crime is greater than the resulting amount in whose case the fine shall be of three times the amount of such benefit, and special disqualification for profession or trade from one to four years, to the developers, builders or technical directors who carry out urban development works, construction or building non-authorizable on land which cannot be developed.
3. In any case, the judges and courts with reasoning, may order, at the expense of the author of the facts, the demolition of the building work and the restitution to its original state of the physical reality altered, without prejudice of the compensations due to third parties of good faith, and assessing the circumstances, and heard the competent Administration, shall temporally condition the demolition to the granting of guarantees which back the payment of them. In any case shall be agreed the seizure of the benefits coming from the crime whatever the transformations which they may have experienced.
4. In the cases of this article, when it is liable a legal person according to the established in the article 31 bis of this Code shall be imposed to it the punishment of fine from one to three years, save when the benefit obtained by the crime exceeds the resulting amount in whose case the fine shall be from the double to the quadruple of the amount of such benefit.
Attending to the rules established in the article 66 bis, the judges and courts may impose the punishments established in letters b) and g) of the seventh point of the article 33.”
Art. 319.1:
Continuing with the order propose by the own article, let us start studying what before we have denominated the aggravated subtype of the basic type of the crime against the land use planning and urban development.
The precept begins exposing the punishments applicable to those liable of the behavior described. It is from the increase in the punishment of imprisonment, in comparison with the established in the second point, from which we have denominated it an aggravated subtype. There exists a great difference between them, the punishment of imprisonment is from one year and six months to four years for the aggravated subtype, while for the basic type it is from one to three years. What is the motive for this increase in the punishment of imprisonment? The legislator has based it on the greater damage of the behavior of the active subject, since in the aggravated subtype the object of the crime is “land designated for roads, green areas, public assets, or places that are legally or administratively recognized for their landscape, ecological, artistic, historical, or cultural value, or when for the same motives, they have been considered of special protection.” While, in the basic type it is enough with being land which cannot be developed.
The following mentioned by the type, are those who can be considered authors of the crime. They can be only, the developers, builders or technical directors of the building work. The legislator, then, has limited the authorship to some persons attending to their profession or trade, something which transforms the type into a special own crime. Nevertheless, we cannot discard other participants in the crime, like the necessary cooperators or accomplices, who are not going to be limited by profession or trade.
According to the Spanish Provincial Court of Lugo´s sentence number 828/2023: “The Spanish Supreme Court establishes that, for the purposes of the article 319 of the Penal Code, it is considered a developer any legal or natural person, private or public, which, individually or collectively, boost, plan or finance, with his own or external resources, building works for himself or later being sold (Spanish Supreme Court´s sentences number 1127-2009 of 27 November 2009; and 830-2017 of 18 December 2017)”.
According to the article 11.1 of the Law 38/1999, of 5 November, of Building Planning (Law 38/1999), “The builder is the agent who assumes, through a contract with the developer, the compromise of executing with human and material means, external or his own, the building works or part of them with subjection to the contract and the project.”
And according to the article 12.1 of the Law 38/1999, “The building work director is the agent who, being part of the management, directs the building work regarding the technical, aesthetic, urban and environmental aspects, in conformity with the project which defines it, the building license and the rest of the preceptive authorizations and the conditions of the contract, with the aim of guaranteeing their adequacy to the proposed goal.”
We continue, and we find the typical behavior. The precept punishes, to carry out “urban development works, construction or building non-authorizable on land designated for roads, green areas, public assets, or places that are legally or administratively recognized for their landscape, ecological, artistic, historical, or cultural value, or when for the same motives, they have been considered of special protection.” Basically, the required by the precept is that, the active subject must build where is not allowed by the law, regardless of whether it is a warehouse, a house or a residential development with swimming pool. This is what the precept means when it specifies that the building work cannot be authorizable. Pay attention to this excerpt from the Spanish Supreme Court´s sentence number 321/2023 of 9 May 2023, Rec. 1997/2001, regarding the non-authorizable or authorizable character of the building work: “In any case, the term “non-authorizable” means that the building work, already begun or finished, cannot be subsequently recognized as adjusted to the legality, as here happens. To attempt to prove that the meaning of the expression “non-authorizable”, allows to maintain the licitness of the facts when there exists a possibility of a potential authorization of the building, is not acceptable. The penal precept does not contemplate a reference to any hypothetical future and the possibility that the urban planning legality could be modified, or to the concurrence of a moment in which it is not possible to act because the administrative order has been closed due to the lack of action or formal defects in it. Such consideration would empty the punishing precept of any content because of the always possible eventuality of being modified the urban development legality. The term “non-authorizable” refers to the moment of the building and contemplates the nature of the material illicitness that surrounds the construction, this is, whether it is adjusted to the urban legality then in force. For the existence of the crime, it is not enough with building without license, it has to be contrary to the urban legality in force at that moment, an scenario in which would be excluded any authorization) (Spanish Supreme Court´s sentence 73/2018, of 13 January).”
Therefore, we should understand, that the crime will be consummated as soon as it is proven that the non-authorizable building works have been begun. It is not relevant, for applying the penal precept, whether after its application there exists the possibility of a change in the current legislation, or even whether this change finally takes place. According to the above, we can also consider that, this is a crime of mere activity, for precept does not require any result for understanding consummated the crime.
Here we have to point out that, the authorizable or non-authorizable character of the building works, and the nullity of the license, regardless of being matters which belong to the administrative order, being elements of the penal precept, can and must be the object of analysis by the penal courts, without waiting to the eventual resolution, and in its case its bindingness, of that jurisdiction (art. 10.1 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch).
In any case, all building work will require the mandatory administrative authorization. This is what is clearly drawn from the article 11.3 of the Land and Urban Rehabilitation Law: “All act of building will require the mandatory administrative act of conformity, approbation or authorization according to the legislation of urban and territorial development, its refusal has to be reasoned. In no event can be understood acquired by administrative silence faculties or rights contravening the territorial or urban development legislation”. Accordingly, it is recommended to any person who wants to carry out a building work, to obtain previously the mandatory administrative authorization, since otherwise, he may commit a crime against the urban o territorial development.
Another of the objective elements of the type, the one which justifies the increase in the punishment with respect to the basic type of the second point, is the kind of land on which is carried out the building work non-authorizable. This should be on, “land designated for roads, green areas, public assets, or places that are legally or administratively recognized for their landscape, ecological, artistic, historical, or cultural value, or when for the same motives, they have been considered of special protection.”
Leaving behind the subjective elements of the type, there is no doubt that it requires the concurrence of malice, to put it differently, the active subject should be conscious of the unlawfulness of its action. Would be enough with the eventual malice? In my opinion the answer should be affirmative, for the active subject could obtain easily any information from the administration, regarding the requisites required by the building work he wants to carry out. On the contrary, there is no doubt that this crime cannot be committed by imprudence, since it is not expressly stated by the precept (art. 12 CP). It is to this subjective element of the type, the existence of malice, the consciousness of the unlawfulness of his action by the active subject, where many defenses have based the innocence of their clients, either alleging an error of type or prohibition. Both legal figures are regulated in the article 14 of the CP, in its first and second precept is regulated the error of type, the first regarding any of the essential elements of the type and the second regarding any of the classifying or aggravating factors, and in its third the error of prohibition. As we have already hinted, there is error of type when the active subject does not know any of the elements of the type, without which the type cannot be consummated. On the other hand, there exists error of prohibition, when the active subject ignores altogether the unlawfulness of his behavior, it is usually distinguished between the error of prohibiting norm (direct error of prohibition) or an error about the cause of justification (indirect error of prohibition). Either in the error of type or in the error of prohibition, it is distinguished between avoidable error and unavoidable error, the latter will take place when attending to the circumstances of the facts and of the author these could not have been avoided, and the former when these could have been avoided. However, this is a defense with its limitations, being effective in rare occasions, for instance, when the construction is a little building attached to another which was authorized and the active subject could have made the mistake. Pay attention to this excerpt from the Spanish Provincial Court of Melilla´s sentence number 181/2023: “Regarding the crime of the article 319 of the Penal Code the Spanish Supreme Court´s sentence number 73/2018, citing the Sentence number 708/2016 of 19 September, states that “it is undoubtable that to know the consciousness of the illegality of an act the personal conditions of the subject and the aspect or matter ignored should be taken into account. The analysis has to be done regarding the concrete case, with special attention to the nature of the crime which is affirmed to have been committed.”.
And, it adds that, “it is common knowledge that the realization of a construction entails the petition of an administrative license, and that the more elemental precautions oblige to ascertain of the legality of the building work, a thing that the accused did not do”.
The criterion exposed is consolidated doctrine of the Supreme Court, being a referent the sentence of 17 October 2006, in which is said: “there exists almost unanimity in considering that it is not possible to construct the error of prohibition upon the basis that the subject does not know, with detail, the normative he is infringing” and “with difficulty can be sustained that someone ignores that the activity of construction or building is subjected to previous control by the Administration through the obtention of license”.
Lastly, though not less important, the legal good protected by the norm is the building development, its rational use aimed to the general interests (art. 45 and 47 of the Spanish Constitution). It is a legal good of those denominated “diffuse interests”, for it is not owned by a concrete individual, but by a collectivity.
Art. 219.2:
As we have already said, in the second point of the article 219 we find what can be regarded as the basic type of the crime against the urban development. A basic type, because of the punishment of imprisonment, which is shorter than the established in the first point, on the basis that the object of the crime is simply non-developable land, and not especially protected land.
Setting aside this important difference between the objects of the crime, on the one hand, non-developable land, and on the other, especially protected land, and in consequence, the intensity of the punishment of imprisonment attached to them, we cannot add much more to the already seen in the first point. Hence, we are going to limit ourselves, to repeat it but in a briefer way:
1. It is a special own crime, since it can be only committed by the developers, builders or technical directors.
2. It is a crime of mere activity, since it is not required any result by the type.
3. The term non-authorizable, it is referred to the moment in which the typical behavior is initiated, being indifferent whether there exist hopes regarding a possible subsequent legalization.
4. The crimes is consummated, as soon as the typical behavior is carried out on non-authorizable land at the moment of being carried out the facts.
5. The penal order is able to decide whether the building work is authorizable or not, without having to wait to a decision from the administrative order.
6. It is a malicious crime, which cannot be committed by imprudence.
7. Pay attention to the errors of type and of prohibition.
8. The legal good protected by the norm is the rational utilization of the territory, as diffuse interest which is owned by the collectivity.
Art. 319.3:
In the third point we find a legal consequence of the crime, since it cannot be regarded either as a punishment, for it is not included in the list of punishments of the article 33 CP, or as civil liability, due to its facultative character, although not arbitrary. We are referring to the “restitutio in integrum”, as a faculty of the judges and courts of being able to order the demolition of the building work and the return to its original state of the physical reality altered.
Although it cannot be considered a civil liability derived from the crime, it is definable as a civil consequence, an obligation of doing derived from the crime, which is no doubt connected with the established in the article 109 and following of the CP, regarding the compensation of the damage. The most important consequence derived from the above, it is that cannot be considered as an exception what the article 109.1 CP is imposed as a general rule. Thereby, the judges and courts should order always the demolition, except when an exceptional circumstance concurs.
Due to the fact that the own article 319.3 does not say anything regarding it, it has been the own jurisprudence the one which has been in charge of developing the exceptional cases that can justify the no demolition, for example, the Spanish Supreme Court´s sentence number 403/2020 of 17 July 2020, Rec. 2432/2018, mentions as exceptions: “a) when they are minimum abuse of authority or minor excesses with regard to the administrative authorization; b) when the developing rules have been modified, making legal the building or construction; c) Attending to the time elapsed between the realization of the building work and the date of the firm sentence.”
Supporting this thesis, we can mention the established in the article 340, which obliges the judges and courts to impose the punishment inferior in degree to the respectively established when the culprit has willingly repaired the damage. It is not an exception, what is considered as necessary by another precept, grating a decrease in the punishment to who has willingly repaired the damage caused.
In the own precept, it is also mentioned another scenario which can be seen as an exception to the general rule of ordering the demolition, although in this case, it is only of temporal character. When the demolition supposes the compensation of third parties of good faith, as for example, those who have intervened in the construction believing that it had all the mandatory authorizations, the judges and courts may temporally condition the demolition to the granting of the guarantees which back the payment. Although, this temporal character, in my opinion, is not well explained by the precept, does it mean that elapsed certain time the demolition has to be always ordered, even when the guarantees has not been granted? In my opinion, this is what the precept seems to say.
The precept also establishes the seizure of the profits coming from the crime, whatever the transformations they may have experienced. No doubt this implies, the seizure of the own building work, when as consequence of any of the exceptions mentioned by the jurisprudence the demolition has not been ordered. In this way, it is avoided that the active subject obtains a profit from the crime, even when the judges and courts have chosen the exception of not carrying out the demolition
There is no doubt, that this faculty of the judges and courts is applicable to both the aggravated subtype of the first point of the article 319, and to the basic type of its second point, this is the meaning of the “In any case…”, with which the third point begins. What is more doubtful, is whether the obligation of motivating the decision also arises when instead of ordering the demolition, it is order the no demolition, for the precept only mentions the first scenario. Due to the importance of the decision, for how it affects to the legal good protected, and its exceptionality, for the demolition, as we have already said, has to be always ordered, the motivation in these cases should be considered also as essential. In this sense, the Spanish Supreme Court´s sentence number 443/2013 of 22 May 2013, Rec. 1731/2012 says: “But if the text insists in requiring what is a constitutional requirement of any judicial decision, this is, the motivation, it is done because it considers that the automatism is in accordance with a decision of this nature for the fact the there exists a crime, but it is not sustainable that only when there is an special motivation is possible to order the demolition, being enough with remembering that, although the norm does not say it expressly, it is obvious that the penal court should also motivate it when it rejects the request made in that sense, by any of the legit parts in the process.”
Art. 319.4:
Through this fourth point of the article 319, it is made liable of the crimes mentioned in the first and second point the legal persons, and it also serves to establish the punishments which can be imposed to them.
– Article 320:
The article 320 is made up of two points, where are regulated two different, although similar too, behaviors. Both of them are part of what has been denominated by the doctrine, as the crime of urban development prevarication. The article 320 says:
“Article 320.
1. The authority or public servant who, knowing its injustice, has favorably reported instruments of development, projects of urban, parcelling, reparcelling, constructing or building development, or the granting of licenses contrary to the legislation regarding territorial or urban development in force, or who with motive of inspections has silenced the infringement of such norms or who has omitted the realization of mandatory inspections shall be punished with the punishment established in the article 404 of this Code and, besides, with the imprisonment from one year and six months to four years and fine from twelve to twenty-four months.
2. With the same punishments shall be punished the authority or public servant who by himself or as a member of a collegial body has decided or voted in favor of the approbation of the instruments of development, the projects of urban, parcelling, reparcelling, constructing or building development or the granting of the licenses to which is referred the previous point, knowing their injustice.”
Art. 320.1:
The first that we realize when we read the precept is that, this is a special own crime, which can be only committed by an authority or public servant.
We continue reading and the next thing which draws our attention, is a subjective element of the type, “knowing its injustice”. What undoubtedly marks this crime as a malicious crime, since the malice is based on the consciousness of the unlawfulness by the active subject. As always, the doubt arises of whether it is enough with the eventual malice to fulfill the requisites of the type. According to the doctrine, there exists eventual malice when the active subject represents to himself as probable to fulfill the elements of the type with his action. As we are able to observe, there exists a slim line separating the eventual malice from the direct malice, for to know the unlawfulness of your behavior or be almost certain that it is, it is almost the same. Therefore, we should not dismiss its commission by eventual malice altogether.
Subsequently, we find the typical behaviors, which are three: 1) to have “favorably reported instruments of development, projects of urban, parcelling, reparcelling, constructing or building development, or the granting of licenses contrary to the legislation regarding territorial or urban development in force”; 2) During inspection to have “silenced the infringement of such norms”, and; 3) to have “omitted the realization of mandatory inspections”.
It is evident that, this is a crime of mere activity, which is consummated as soon as is carried out the typical action.
In the first case, the typical behavior seems to be referred to the supporting through reports of “instruments of development, projects of urban, parcelling, reparcelling, constructing or building development, or the granting of licenses contrary to the legislation regarding territorial or urban development in force”
The second case is referred to cases in which, in spite of having conducted an inspection, this has been altered, not including, for example, in the resulting report the negative events, like the infringement of the norms of urban development.
And in the last case, it is clear, that they are case in which the mandatory inspections are not carried out. This is a good way, of not having to fix their result like in the previous case.
In my opinion, these three typical behaviors have in common that they seem to be aimed to a public servant, and not an authority (politician), like a municipal architect.
What has generated more problems, is to distinguish those cases which should be considered a mere administrative infringement, from those which should be considered a penal illicit. According to the doctrine of the Spanish Courts, the penal order should be utilized to punish the gravest cases, those in which not only has been contravened the established in a norm, but also an arbitrary and unjust decision has been taken, in other words, which is impossible support with any admissible legal argument. The Spanish Supreme Court´s sentence number 752/2016, of 11 October 2016, Rec. 343/2016, says: “As we have already said in other occasions, the aim is not to replace the Administrative Jurisdiction, in its labor of controlling the legality of the acts coming from the Public Administration, with the Penal Jurisdiction through the crime of prevarication, but rather of punishing limit cases, where an administrative act is not only illegal, but also unjust and arbitrary.”
We should not confound a crime of prevarication, with a null and void act of full right. The article 62 of the Law 30/1992, of 26 November, on the Legal Regime for Public Administrations and Common Administrative Procedure:
“Article 62. Nullity of full right.
1. The acts from the public Administrations are null and void of full right in the following cases:
a) Those which damage right and freedoms susceptible of constitutional protection.
b) Those dictated by a manifestly incompetent organ by reason of matter and territory.
c) Those which have an impossible content.
d) Those which are constitutive of a penal infringement or are dictated as consequence of this.
e) Those dictated ignoring altogether the procedure legally established or of the norms which contain the essential rules for forming the will of the collegiate bodies.
f) The express or alleged acts contrary to the legal order through which are acquired faculties or rights when are lacked the essential rights for their acquisition.
g) Any other which may be expressly established in a disposition of legal rank.
2. The following are also null and void of full right: the administrative dispositions which infringe the Constitution, the laws or other administrative dispositions of superior rank; those which regulate matters reserved to the Law; and, those which establish the retroactivity of punishing dispositions non-favorable or restrictive of fundamental rights.”
Therefore, it is possible to conceive an act null and void of full right, which is not a penal illicit.
On the other hand, according to the doctrine, to the crime of urban development prevarication are also applicable the requisites of the crime of “general” prevarication of the article 404, which the Spanish Supreme Court´s sentence number 497/2012 of 4 June 2012, Rec. 732/2011 sums up in the following: “The requisites of this crime are: 1) a resolution dictated by authority or public servant in an administrative matter; 2) it has to be contrary to the Law, in other words, illegal; 3) this contradiction with the law or illegality, which can be manifested in the absolute lack of competence, in the omission of essential proceedings of the procedure or in the own substantial content of the resolution, has to be of such entity which could not be explained with a minimum reasonable technical-legal argumentation; 4) it has to provoke a materially unjust result; and 5) the resolution has to be dictated with the aim of making effective the particular will of the authority or public servant, and with the knowledge of acting against the right.”
Lastly, in relation with this crime, the legal good protected by the norm is “the correct working of the public Administration, since it has to be aimed to the satisfaction of the general interests of the citizens, with wholly subjection of the legal dispositions to the law (art. 9.1 and art. 103 CE), in this way respecting the constitutional requirement of guarantee of the principles of legality, of legal security and of prohibition of the arbitrariness of the public powers (art. 9.3 CE).” (Spanish Provincial Court of Madrid´s sentence number 17216/2023).
Art. 320.2:
As we already said, the crimes described in the first and second point of the article 320 are different, but at the same time they are also similar.
In this case, we also find a special own crime which only can be committed by an authority of public servant. And again, it is required as subjective element that the authority or public servant, has to carry out the behavior described by the type, “knowing its injustice”.
However, the typical behavior changes. The punished is, by yourself or as a member of a collegiate body, to have “decided or voted in favor of the approbation of the instruments of development, the projects of urban, parcelling, reparcelling, constructing or building development or the granting of the licenses to which is referred the previous point”
If before I said that the typical behavior described in the first point seemed to be aimed to a public servant, like a municipal architect. On the contrary, the one of the second point, seems to be more conceived for an authority, or as I said before, a politician, for example, the Mayor or a town councilor.
Beyond that, there is little to add to the said in the previous point, although we are going to repeat the most important:
1. It is a special own crime.
2. It is a malicious crime.
3. It is a crime of mere activity.
4. It is not the same an act null and void of full right, than an act which constitutes a crime of prevarication.
5. The frontier between the administrative and penal jurisdiction, is marked by the injustice and arbitrariness of the act.
6. The legal good protected by the norm, is the correct working of the public administration, with wholly subjection of the legal dispositions to the law.
– Common dispositions:
– Article 338:
Through the article 338, it is punished in an especially severe way the behaviors which damage protected natural spaces. The article 338 says:
“Article 338.
When the behaviors defined in this Title affect to some protected natural space, shall be imposed the punishments superior in degree to those respectively established.”
The art. 28 of the Law 42/2007, of 13 December, on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity, defines what is a protected natural space:
“Article 28. Definition of protected natural spaces.
1. Shall be considered protected natural spaces the spaces of the national territory, included the continental waters, and the marine environment, along the exclusive economic zone and the continental platform, which fulfil at least one of the following requisites and are declared as such:
a) To contain representative systems or natural elements, singular, fragile, threatened or of special ecological, scientific, landscape, geological or educative interest.
b) To be specially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of the biological diversity, of the geodiversity and the natural and cultural resources associated.”
– Article 339:
The article 339 says:
“Article 339.
The judges and courts shall order the adoption, at the expense of the author of the facts, of the necessary measures aimed to restore the ecological equilibrium perturbed, as well as any other necessary preventive measure to the protection of the goods protected by this Title.”
Pay attention to the fact, that the said by this article 339 is something really similar to the established in the third point of the article 319, what we called “restitutio in integrum”. However, the article 339 is specifically dedicated to the restoration of the ecological equilibrium perturbed.
Despite this similarity, which even can suppose an overlapping between the established in both precepts, there exists an important difference, like we saw before, the article 319.3 shapes the demolition of the building work as a faculty of the judges and courts, while the article 339 does not leave any room for them, the judges and courts always has to order at the expense of the author of the facts the adoption of the measures, aimed to restore the ecological equilibrium. In this sense, both precepts are contradictory, what should rule in the case that the demolition of the building work was an essential requisite for the restitution of the ecological equilibrium, but some of the exceptions which the doctrine has accepted to justify the no demolition took place? In my opinion, the protection of the legal good protected by the norm requires the demolition of the building work in any event.
If before we said, that the measure established in the article 319.3 cannot be considered part of the civil liability derived from the crime for being facultative, something which contradicts how is shaped the civil liability by the article 109.1, where is established the obligation of repairing the damages derived from a crime in any case. It does not seem, that now there are obstacles for understanding the opposite, therefore, the obligation of the article 339 of restoring the ecological equilibrium perturbed has to be considered another element of the civil liability derived from the crime, being the articles 109 and 339 not only related, but intimately connected, being the latter a practical application of the former.
With regard to the preventive measures of the same precept, they have to be adopted as soon as there are evidences of the commission of the crime (fumus boni iuris) and risks to the restitution of the object of the crime to its original state if it is waited for firm sentence (periculum in mora). These preventive measures can be ordered in any part of the procedure.
– Article 340:
The article 340 says:
“Article 340.
If the culprit of any of the facts punished in this Title willingly repair the damage caused, the Judges and Courts shall impose him the punishment inferior in degree of the respectively established.”
The CP rewards those who before the sentence ending the penal procedure, have repaired the damage caused.
Víctor López Camacho.
Twitter: @victorsuperlope.
More in my website: www.victorlopezcamacho.com