erroneous application of the criminal definition to the proven facts; 461 xiii) violation of the rules governing the time limits for deliberation of the judgment and sentencing; 462 xiv) erroneous application of Article 106 of the Criminal Code and violation of Articles 649, 647, 803 and 826 of the Code Civil, regarding joint and several civil liability; 463 xv) violation of the rules of sound judgment in the assessment of evidence and erroneous application of the rules regarding civil action for compensation and the existence of pecuniary damage to the detriment of the State; 464 and xvi) alleged erroneous application of Law 5662 and the Organic Law of the National Institute of Housing and Urban Development and its reforms, with respect to the alleged legal personality of said Institute. 465 also discussed in depth in the ruling [and] the court's reading of the regulatory provisions does not allow for any other objective interpretation [...].” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folios 33992.33993, 34000 and 34001). 461 xii) The appellant alleged that “the court determined the existence of twelve crimes of embezzlement that are differentiated by the actions carried out by the affected institution, when issuing each of the checks, and not by the actions of the active subject. In reality, the defendants participated in a single action, so that it is a single offense of embezzlement [...] [In addition] there is an apparent concurrence of rules [...] in Article 325 of the Criminal Code [and] in Article 10 of Law 5662 [...], which is special and should have been applied in this case because it was the rule that most favored him [...].”The Chamber referred to the analysis of a plea made by the public defender of the co-defendant. It stated that “since [Martínez] held the position of Coordinator of the Social Compensation and Land Titling Programs, and administered the public resources assigned to him by virtue of the INVU-DESAF Agreement, and this administration was carried out fraudulently and illegally, with the intervention of [his co-defendant], who executed the acts necessary for the full completion of the action defined as a criminal offense, which determines the configuration […] of the crime of embezzlement, and consequently, it is proven that the decision of the Criminal Court derives from the correct application of substantive criminal law.” Regarding the apparent concurrence of norms, it indicated that “according to the same rule, it is about establishing an administrative and independent responsibility for actions that correspond to the Criminal Code” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folios 33893, 34003). 462 xiii) According to the appellant, this would result in the annulment of the judgment. The Chamber indicated that “the arguments cannot be admitted. Article 378 of the [CCP] stipulates the consequences of the declaration of complex proceedings […]. [S]aid rule establishes that the time periods for deliberation and drafting of the judgment will be different according to the duration of the trial. Thus, if the trial lasts less than thirty days, the deliberation period is extended to five days, and, if it lasts more than one month, that same period is extended to ten days. […]In the case under study, the proceedings concluded on June 26, 2007, and the operative part was issued on July 17 of the same year [...] Nevertheless, […]the ten working days were not exceeded, since [... the] Superior Council of the Judicial Branch [...] approved the collective vacation plan for the Judicial Branch 20062007, granting as such from Monday, July 9 to Friday, July 13, 2007, five days, which are included within the term indicated in the appeal.” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 34004). 463 xiv) According to the appellant, “in accordance with these rules [in his case] the discharge based on solidarity operated and he could not be subject to civil conviction.” The Chamber declared the claim inadmissible, since the aforementioned civil rules apply "only in the event that the payment of the obligation has been made and only with respect to the debtor who has already paid, since, otherwise, an unjust enrichment would occur. In this case, although the State has proceeded individually against the defendants, it has not succeeded in enforcing any conviction […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folios 34004 and 34005). 464 xv) According to the appellant, “having verified that the different payments were made in the proper manner, there is no amount to be compensated as pecuniary damage […]. Likewise, the law was breached by declaring the objection of lack of legality and others in relation to all the monies paid for professional services, which, as it has been which, as has been argued, are also legitimate.” The Chamber dismissed the complaint, stating that the defendant "deviated, once again, from the principle of intangibility of the facts proven in the judgment, which are contrary to what is being claimed. Therefore, having determined the existence of the unlawful action, the declaration of civil liability against him was appropriate” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 34006). 465 xvi) According to the appellant, “[T]he regulations establish that the INVU is an autonomous institution, with its own legal personality, with its own legal personality, and therefore the money drawn by it was not part of the State's assets. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Republic to represent it in this lawsuit". The Chamber rejected the argument. It indicated that, "[a]s demonstrated in the judgment, the Social Compensation and Land Titling Programs [...] were under the responsibility of […] a permanent technical unit of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security […].Thus, as the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Republic is the representative of the State, in its Central Administration, it is entitled to act in this case” Cf. Decision No. 200800232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folios 34006 and 34007). 105