Abencia Meza condemned to 30 years for inciting murder of ex-partner in Lima
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Abencia Meza Luna as the instigator of the aggravated homicide of Alicia Delgado Hilario, which occurred in 2009 in Santiago de Surco.
Final conviction for incitement to aggravated homicide: the Abencia Meza case
According to lpderecho.pe, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru upheld the conviction of thirty years of imprisonment imposed on Abencia Meza Luna as the instigator of the aggravated homicide of Alicia Luisa Delgado Hilario, a crime committed on 23 June 2009 in the district of Santiago de Surco, Lima. The ruling, identified as RN 1192-2012-Lima, was issued on 15 January 2020 with the opinion of Supreme Judge Balladares Aparicio.
The accredited facts
Pedro César Mamanchura Antúnez, the direct perpetrator of the crime, entered apartment 602 on Boulevard N.° 161, in the Monterrico residential development, where the victim lived. Taking advantage of Delgado Hilario's moment of inattention—with whom he worked—, he seized her from behind, inflicted multiple stab wounds with a kitchen knife, covered her mouth, inflicted cuts to her neck, and finally strangled her with a belt to ensure her death.
After committing the crime, Mamanchura Antúnez changed clothes, removed the victim's safe and took her vehicle to the new bridge in the Agustino district. There he handed over the safe to an unidentified third party and received an envelope containing two thousand soles. The body of Alicia Delgado Hilario was found in her own property on 25 June 2009; Mamanchura Antúnez was arrested three days later in the city of Tumbes.
The role of Abencia Meza Luna as instigator
The court determined that Abencia Meza Luna instigated Mamanchura Antúnez to murder the woman who had been her romantic partner, using the affective and labour authority she exercised over him. The ruling establishes that instigation occurs when one person determines another to commit a specific intentional unlawful act, without having control of the fact, which distinguishes it from direct authorship.
The Court noted that Meza Luna resorted to expressions such as "doing a favour" in exchange for "lending assistance", and that after the commission of the crime she effectively delivered the two thousand soles agreed upon. Mamanchura Antúnez stated that he considered the accused to be his aunt and called her by that name; he lodged in her home and received her advice, a fact that Meza Luna herself corroborated during the oral trial.
Labour relationship and trust as determining factors
The court emphasised that the labour relationship between both accused was not questioned by either of them. Meza Luna herself acknowledged that Mamanchura Antúnez carried out all manner of tasks for her, which established that he was a trusted and close worker.
The Chamber applied the maxims of experience to emphasise that in order to ask a person to commit a crime to the detriment of another, one precisely requires individuals of trust, with a close relationship—whether family, friendly or labour-based. In this case, both conditions existed in Mamanchura Antúnez with respect to Meza Luna.
Legal framework of instigation
The ruling clarifies that instigation may be committed through gifts, promises, threats, violence, coercion or abuse of authority, among other suitable and effective means to provoke the criminal decision in the perpetrator. In the present case, the Court considered the abuse of affective and labour authority accrued, as well as the economic promise realised through the delivery of money.
The crime was classified as aggravated homicide in accordance with article 108 of the Peruvian Criminal Code, and the conviction also included the joint payment of two hundred and fifty thousand soles by way of civil damages.
Procedural background and habeas corpus
Meza Luna's defence filed a nullity appeal against the judgment of 7 February 2012 that had condemned her at first instance. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court, in Case N.° 00485-2016-PHC/TC, declared a habeas corpus claim filed on behalf of the accused to be partially upheld and ordered that a new ruling on such appeal be issued.
It was within that framework that the Supreme Criminal Chamber analysed the case again, heard a statement of facts from Meza Luna via videoconference and the arguments of her legal defence and the attorney for the civil party. The final ruling declared there to be no nullity in the appealed judgment, thereby upholding the thirty years of imprisonment.
Assessment of evidence
The Court based its decision on the individual and joint assessment of all evidence presented during the proceedings. The legal substance highlighted in the ruling—legal basis 23—emphasises that the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction for incitement to aggravated homicide was fully established, both by the statements of the accused and by the elements corroborated during the oral trial.
Source: Google News PE — Lima