application of Article 354 of the Criminal Code regarding the administration of public funds, 449 and ii) erroneous application of Article 77 of the Criminal Code, which provides for the concept of an ongoing or continuing offense. 450 323. For his part, Mr. Martínez, listed 16 grounds in his cassation appeal against the aforementioned conviction: i) and ii) were related to several violations of constitutional due 449 i) The appellant alleged that “the action for which he is investigated […] does not fall under the assumption [...] of a public official who steals or misappropriates money or goods whose administration, collection or custody has been entrusted to him by reason of his position […].” The Chamber stated that “the claim is inadmissible […] the trial court states the basis for determining that the funds of the Social Compensation Commissions and the Land Titling Program were public funds and their administrator was Jorge Martínez, criteria with which this Chamber agrees […].Indeed, he turned out to be a public official, since he was appointed to the Interinstitutional Commission that executed and coordinated the Social Compensation Program, as a representative of the Second Vice-Presidency […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folios 33951 and 33952). 450 ii) The appellant alleged that “the duty of probity in public office, a public good that is protected against the crime of embezzlement, was violated with the implementation of the new alternative system of payments, which is a single action, but not with the release of the checks […].” The Chamber stated that “[t]he claim is unsustainable. Although the imposition of the so-called 'alternative method of payment' is a single act, [...] the damage to state assets resulting from this method of payment occurs through the drawing of each of the twelve known checks, a situation that allows for the application of the continuous crime modality […] since it is evident that these actions pursued a single objective: the diversion of the final amount already indicated, which was carried out by means of transfers at different times, all approved and followed by the defendant […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33955). 101