analyzed the facts presented before the trial court which determined that, effectively, it was not complicity but co-perpetration. In this regard, the Third Chamber concluded that “[...] it was possible to determine the specific role played by [Rafael Rojas...] in the execution of the prior plan, which involved the distribution of functions for a common purpose: to defraud the victim, which means that the accused and his companion retained functional control of the act in its execution [...] and were responsible for the overall criminal act. It is irrelevant at what stage of the iter criminis the actions of each of the parties involved took place.” 409 290. Furthermore, the Third Chamber dismissed the arguments put forward by Mr. Rojas based on the following reasons. First, it held that the alleged statute of limitations for the crime of embezzlement had not expired, but that it had expired for the crime of use of a false document. However “[…] in the intellectual analysis it indicated that, in the case of concurrent offenses, the penalty to be imposed was the one pertaining to the most serious offense, that is, embezzlement, leaving the crime of use of a false document[…] without penalty. Consequently, there is no harm to the accused.” Regarding the failure of the prosecution to bring two pieces of evidence to trial, namely the order forms and the purchase and sale invoices issued by the affected company, the Chamber noted that “[…]their absence cannot be associated with the lack of objectivity of the Public Prosecutor's Office, even in his statement the [representative] of the injured party [...] indicated that he [did] not keep the documentation […]. Nevertheless, [the] Chamber, by hypothetically including this evidence, is able to determine that it would not be fundamental to change the direction of the judges' decision, since, as indicated by the lower court, the testimonial and documentary evidence gathered clearly determined [...] the dynamics developed by the accused [...]. In addition, the appellant does not demonstrate the harm caused to him, since there is conclusive proof that the offended parties delivered the merchandise against receipt of a check that was delivered by the defendant [...].” 291. Regarding the second and third arguments, the Chamber found that the alleged inconsistencies did not arise. It noted that “[w]ith regard to the witnesses that the complainant claims were not heard and were essential, neither the accused in his material defense nor his defense counsel objected to the rejection of the statements of F and M as stated in the order opening the trial [...] since they were rejected as surplus to requirements. Likewise, regarding K and S, the parties to the proceedings disregarded their statements [...]. [As for the omission of the order forms and purchase invoices [...] the Chamber considered that the defense expressly disregarded them when it indicated, at the beginning of the adversarial proceedings, that there were no objections to the evidence offered.” 292. Finally, with respect to the fourth argument, the Chamber noted that “[…] [t]hrough a modification of the proven facts, the appellant seeks to reconstruct his own factual framework […] This Chamber, within the framework of its function of overseeing the legitimacy of the judgment and the correct application of the law to the proven facts, finds that the challenged ruling includes, both in its factual description and in its legal reasoning, accurate and sufficient elements of judgment, supported by legally valid evidence, which provide sufficient basis to classify the conduct of the accused within the provisions of Articles 216.2 and 365 of the Criminal Code […].The deceitful ploy of which the victim was the target [...], in order to achieve the delivery of the merchandise to the accused, was especially evident; part of the latter's scheme was precisely that he was recommended by a company to be present at the premises and to write the check […] and, using a false document, with the purpose of continuing his scheme, he handed the victim a check knowing that it was stolen [...]. The above summary undoubtedly confirms the defendant’s participation in the facts, and, contrary to what the complainant claims, the conclusions of the judges are in 409 Cf. Decision 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of March 22, 2012 (evidence file, folios 33705 and 33706). 91