Habeas Corpus Not Available to Review Criminal Evidence and Pre-Trial Detention GroundsImprocedencia del hábeas corpus para revisar prueba penal y fundamentación de la prisión preventiva

“II.- ON THE HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL (RECURSO DE HABEAS CORPUS): This Chamber, as guardian of constitutionality, has issued consistent case law on this subject. Thus, in judgment 2008-012225 of nine hours and forty-two minutes on the twelfth of August, two thousand eight, it stated the following:

“(…) III.- Habeas corpus and the jurisdiction of the constitutional jurisdiction. In accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, habeas corpus is a special and preferential remedy through which the restoration of the constitutional right to liberty, the suspension of any order that threatens it, and the protection of personal integrity are sought, without this jurisdiction thereby becoming an additional instance in the criminal process. Consequently, habeas corpus is processed through a summary, simple, and informal procedure, by which the right to freedom of movement and the physical integrity of citizens are protected against public authority, since the Chamber may only hear those actions of the ordinary courts that have a strict relationship to and impact on personal liberty, be it its effective restriction or a direct threat of its restriction –see in this regard judgment number 2001-766, of fourteen hours fifty-seven minutes on the thirtieth of January, two thousand one-. Thus, it is not the role of the Chamber to oversee the assessment of the body of evidence conducted by the criminal jurisdictional authorities –judgment number 2001-3258, of eight hours fifty-six minutes on the twenty-seventh of April, two thousand one-, nor to verify that a correct application of criminal law has occurred. Therefore, it is not within the competence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) to verify, among other aspects, whether the material evidence, the testimonies and statements of witnesses, victims or defendants, and any other piece of evidence that might have existed in the case file, demonstrate the guilt or innocence of the accused person, nor should eminently material aspects occurring or produced during the processing of the summary proceedings be assessed by this jurisdiction.

Indeed, the Chamber’s case law has been consistent in defining the scope of this jurisdiction, stating in this regard, through judgment number 2002-8811 of sixteen hours and twenty minutes on the tenth of September, two thousand two –reiterated, among others, by judgment number 2007-18662, of eleven hours nineteen minutes on the twenty-first of December, two thousand seven-, that:

"[T]his Chamber is not an additional instance in the criminal process, nor does it have the role of substituting criminal judges in the exercise of their functions, under penalty of improperly affecting the sphere of competence of the criminal jurisdiction, in open contradiction with Article 153 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). For this reason, it is within the criminal process itself that the appropriateness of the pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) in the specific case of each accused must be determined, in accordance with the various existing elements of conviction, the concurrence of the circumstances that justify it, and their particular relationship to the process. (…)" (The underlining is not part of the original) Similarly, in resolution 2007-003027 of fourteen hours and thirty-eight minutes on the seventh of March, two thousand seven, it ordered:

(…)IV.- The Chamber in its case law has stated that the constitutional route is not the competent one to resolve matters related to evidence in a criminal case, a situation that is reserved by law to the ordinary judge, and therefore the appellant here is incorrect in that sense. In the case under study, the invalidity is claimed of acts carried out in the criminal process against the protected party, such as the photographic identification, the physical identification, and technical reports, which support the ordered precautionary measures of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva). Issuing a favorable ruling in this case would clearly exceed the competence granted by the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and the aforementioned Law, since it is asked to resolve procedural aspects that belong exclusively to the proper competence of the jurisdictional bodies of the matter, of which this is not another instance. The criminal procedural system provides sufficient means to channel the objections that exist regarding the regularity of the process, which may be raised at the beginning, during, and at the end of the trial, even leaving open the possibility of appealing the verdict before the Court of Cassation. Therefore, if it is considered that there are procedural defects in the specific case, in accordance with the applicable regulations, a protest may be filed before the competent body, describing the defect and proposing the corresponding solution, in accordance with the rules of defective procedural activity regulated by the Código Procesal Penal in Articles 175 and following, and complying with the duty of loyalty imposed by Article 127 of that same normative body.

V.- By virtue of the considerations set forth, it is appropriate to declare the appeal without merit, as is hereby done. (…)” (The underlining is not part of the original) III.- REGARDING CRIMINAL EVIDENCE. SPECIFIC CASE: After analyzing the evidentiary elements provided, this Court dismisses any violation of the fundamental rights of the protected individuals. From the report issued by the representative of the appealed authority —which is taken as given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law that governs this Jurisdiction— and the evidence provided for the resolution of the matter, it has been duly accredited that criminal case 10-003031-00059-PE is being processed before the Criminal Court of Heredia (Juzgado Penal de Heredia) against Huber Rodríguez Rojas and Vinicio Rodríguez Rojas for the crime of aggravated robbery to the detriment of Lam Yeung Hi Cheong. By resolution of zero hours two minutes on the seventh of August, two thousand ten, the Criminal Court of Heredia (Juzgado Penal de Heredia) ordered the raid (allanamiento), search (registro), and seizure (secuestro) in the apartments where the accused lived, as well as of the vehicles found there. By resolution of twenty hours fifty-six minutes on the seventh of August, two thousand ten, the Criminal Court of Heredia (Juzgado Penal de Heredia) ordered pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) against the accused for a period of six months, to expire on the seventh of February, two thousand eleven. From the foregoing, and the partially transcribed case law, this Chamber reiterates the opinion expressed and maintains that the discrepancies regarding the criminal evidence existing in the case file must be alleged through ordinary or legality channels. Thus, the inconsistencies pointed out by the parties regarding the appropriateness or not of the raids (allanamientos), searches (registros), and seizures (secuestros) must be discussed within the criminal process and not through the constitutional route, as it is not within its competence. Finding no conflicts of a constitutional nature, it is appropriate to declare the appeal without merit.

IV.- APPROPRIATENESS OF PRETRIAL DETENTION (PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA) IN GENERAL. For Constitutional Law, the deprivation of liberty of an individual, as a precautionary measure, is an exceptional measure only possible in strict compliance with the law, through a reasoned judicial resolution and within the limits indispensable to ensure the discovery of the truth, the enforcement of the law, and the protection of the legal order. In order to guarantee respect for these values, the pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) of an individual as a precautionary measure shall be agreed upon, exceptionally, when there is verified indication that the individual has committed a crime, through a reasoned judicial resolution, and within the indispensable limits to ensure the discovery of the truth and the enforcement of the law. Likewise, it is an unavoidable duty for the Criminal Judge, when ordering such a drastic measure, to substantiate their decision, stating the factual and legal grounds on which it is based, since it is not a matter of repeating the legal prerequisites that allow the measure, but of giving them content, so that the interested party may exercise their right to defense and challenge the decision before the Superior Court.

V.- ON THE SUBSTANTIATION OF PRETRIAL DETENTION (PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA). The competencies of this Court in relation to the deprivation of liberty through the imposition of these precautionary measures are contained in Article 24 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, and refers to examining, among other aspects, whether there is a legally ordered arrest warrant or pretrial detention order (inciso c), or, if for any reason the deprivation of liberty or the measure imposed is improper (inciso d). The requirements for the appropriateness of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) are stipulated in Article 239 of the Código Procesal Penal, the first of these being the existence of sufficient elements of conviction to sustain that the accused is, with probability, the perpetrator of a punishable act or a participant in it. Subsequently, the presence of procedural risks is analyzed, namely, the risk of criminal repetition, obstruction of justice, and risk of flight. In addition to these elements, it is analyzed whether the crime attributed to the accused is punishable by a custodial sentence. This measure of deprivation of liberty has an exceptional character, which, as such, has purposes different from those established for a prison sentence, which is why our criminal procedural legal system is based on the principle that pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) can only pursue purposes of procedural assurance, such as those contemplated in Article 239 cited above (Voto No. 009856-07 of 14:32 hours on July 17, 2007).

VI.- SUBSTANTIATION OF PRETRIAL DETENTION (PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA). SPECIFIC CASE: In the present matter, the Chamber verifies that the resolution of twenty hours fifty-six minutes on the seventh of August, two thousand ten, from the Criminal Court of Heredia (Juzgado Penal de Heredia) is duly reasoned. It is determined that the precautionary measure was based on Articles 238, 239, 240, and 241 of the Código Procesal Penal. The participation of the accused is corroborated, supported by witness statements, police reports, and the positive identification of the accused. It notes that the raid is lawful; at the site, the stolen vehicle, personal belongings of the accused, tools, key blanks, and objects related to vehicle cloning were located. It considers the existence of the risk of flight given that the accused face a process for aggravated robbery, a crime with a minimum sentence of five years of imprisonment, such that the conditional execution of the sentence cannot be applied. The damage caused by the theft of the vehicle, the damage perpetrated against the dwelling, damage to the gate, and the altered documents that must be replaced, such as Riteve and the circulation permits, are noted. It affirms that the risk of obstruction exists because one of the accused may prevent the witness from cooperating with the Administration of Justice, in addition to the risk of criminal repetition, as it is determined that the seized items are optimal for motor vehicle theft, and not for furniture making as the accused claim. From the foregoing, the Chamber dismisses the claim that the pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) imposed on the accused lacks substantiation. Consequently, it is appropriate to declare the appeal without merit on this point.” Likewise, for the Criminal Judge it is an unavoidable duty, when ordering such a drastic measure, to state the reasons for their decision, indicating the factual and legal grounds on which it is based, since it is not a matter of repeating the legal requirements that allow the measure, but of giving them content, so that the interested party may exercise their right of defense and challenge the decision before the Superior Court.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:25.5pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'>V.- REGARDING THE REASONING OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION (PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA).</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'> The competences of this Court in relation to the deprivation of liberty through the imposition of these precautionary measures are contained in Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), and refer to examining, among other aspects, whether there exists a legally decreed detention order or preventive detention (auto de detención o prisión preventiva) (subsection c), or, if for any reason the deprivation of liberty or the imposed measure were improper (subsection d).&nbsp; The requirements for the appropriateness of preventive detention (prisión preventiva) are stipulated in Article 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), the first of these being the existence of sufficient elements of conviction to sustain that the accused person (imputado) is, with probability, the perpetrator of a punishable act or a participant in it. Next, the presence of procedural risks (peligros procesales) is analyzed, namely, the risk of repeat offenses, obstruction of justice, and risk of flight. In addition to these elements, it is analyzed whether the crime attributed to the defendant is punishable by a custodial sentence. This custodial measure is exceptional in nature, which, as such, has different purposes than those established for a prison sentence, and therefore our criminal procedural legal system is based on the principle that preventive detention (prisión preventiva) may only pursue procedural security purposes, such as those contemplated in the aforementioned ordinal 239 (Voto No. 009856-07 of 14:32 hours on July 17, 2007).&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;VI- REASONING OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION (PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA). SPECIFIC CASE: </span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'>In the present matter, the Court (la Sala) verifies that the resolution of twenty hours fifty-six minutes on August seventh, two thousand ten, from the Criminal Court of Heredia is duly reasoned. It is determined that the precautionary measure was grounded in Articles 238, 239, 240, and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). The participation of the accused is corroborated, supported by witness statements, police reports, and the positive identification of the defendants. It notes that the search (allanamiento) conforms to the law; at the site, the stolen vehicle is located, along with personal objects of the defendants, tools, lock-picks (llavines), and objects related to vehicle cloning (gemeleo de vehículos). It considers the existence of a risk of flight given that the accused face a process for aggravated robbery, a crime with a minimum penalty of five years of imprisonment, therefore the conditional execution of the penalty cannot be applied. The damage caused by the theft of the vehicle, the damage perpetrated to the dwelling, damage to the gate, and the altered documents that must be replaced, such as Riteve and circulation permits (derechos de circulación), are verified. It affirms that a risk of obstruction exists because one of the defendants could prevent the witness from cooperating with the Administration of Justice, in addition to the risk of repeat offenses, as it is determined that the confiscated goods are optimal for vehicle theft (sustracción de automotores) and not, as the accused claim, for making furniture. From the foregoing, the Court (la Sala) dismisses that the preventive detention (prisión preventiva) imposed on the defendants lacks reasoning. Consequently, the appropriate course is to declare the recourse without merit on this point.” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> </body> </html> Likewise, for the Criminal Judge, it constitutes an unavoidable duty, when ordering such a drastic measure, to justify their decision, indicating the factual and legal grounds upon which it is based, for it is not a matter of repeating the legal preconditions that allow the measure, but of giving them content, so that the interested party may exercise their right to a defense and challenge the decision before the Superior Court.

**V.- ON THE JUSTIFICATION OF PRETRIAL DETENTION.** The powers of this Court in relation to the deprivation of liberty through the imposition of these precautionary measures are contained in Article 24 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), and refer to examining, among other aspects, whether there is a legally ordered arrest warrant or pretrial detention (subsection c), or, if for any reason the deprivation of liberty or the measure imposed is improper (subsection d). The requirements for the appropriateness of pretrial detention are stipulated in Article 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), the first of these being the existence of sufficient convincing evidence to maintain that the accused is, with probability, the perpetrator of a punishable act or a participant in it. Next, the presence of procedural risks is analyzed, that is, the risk of criminal reiteration, obstruction of justice, and the risk of flight. In addition to these elements, it is analyzed whether the crime attributed to the defendant is punishable by a custodial sentence (pena privativa de libertad). This measure of deprivation of liberty possesses an exceptional nature, which as such, has different purposes than those established for a prison sentence, which is why our criminal procedural legal system proceeds from the principle that pretrial detention can only pursue purposes of procedural assurance, such as those contemplated in the aforementioned Article 239 (Voto No. 009856-07 of 14:32 hours of July 17, 2007).

VI- JUSTIFICATION OF PRETRIAL DETENTION. SPECIFIC CASE: In the present matter, the Chamber finds that the resolution of eight fifty-six in the evening of August seven, two thousand ten, of the Criminal Court of Heredia is duly reasoned. It is determined that the precautionary measure was grounded in Articles 238, 239, 240, and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). The participation of the accused is corroborated, supported by witness statements, police reports, and the positive identification of the defendants. It indicates that the raid (allanamiento) conforms to law; at the site, the stolen vehicle was located, along with personal objects of the defendants, tools, keys, and objects related to vehicle cloning (gemeleo de vehículos). It considers the existence of a risk of flight given that the accused face proceedings for aggravated robbery, a crime with a minimum sentence of five years of imprisonment, therefore the conditional suspension of the sentence cannot be applied. The damage caused by the vehicle theft is verified, the damage perpetrated to the dwelling, damage to the gate, the altered documents that must be replaced, such as the vehicle inspection sticker (Riteve) and circulation permits. It affirms that there is a risk of obstruction because one of the defendants may prevent the witness from cooperating with the Administration of Justice, in addition to the risk of criminal reiteration because it is determined that the seized goods are optimal for the theft of motor vehicles, and not, as the defendants claim, for furniture making. From the foregoing, the Chamber rules out that the pretrial detention imposed on the defendants is devoid of justification. Consequently, it is appropriate to declare the appeal without merit on this point.”

“II.- SOBRE EL RECURSO DE HABEAS CORPUS: Esta Sala contralora de constitucionalidad, ha emitido reiterada jurisprudencia sobre este tema. Así, en sentencia 2008- 012225 de las nueve horas y cuarenta y dos minutos del doce de agosto del dos mil ocho, indicó lo siguiente:

“ (…) III.- El hábeas corpus y la competencia de la jurisdicción constitucional. De conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo quince de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, el hábeas corpus es un recurso especial y preferente por medio del cual se solicita el restablecimiento del derecho constitucional a la libertad, la suspensión de todo orden que la amenace y la protección de la integridad personal, sin que por ello esta jurisdicción se convierta en una instancia más en el proceso penal. Por consiguiente, el hábeas corpus se tramita mediante un procedimiento sumario, sencillo e informal, por el cual se protege el derecho a la libertad de tránsito y la integridad física de los ciudadanos de cara a la autoridad pública, puesto que la Sala sólo puede conocer aquellas actuaciones de los tribunales comunes que guardan una estricta relación e incidencia sobre libertad personal, sea su restricción efectiva o la amenaza directa a su restricción –ver en este sentido sentencia número 2001-766, de catorce horas cincuenta y siete minutos del treinta de enero de dos mil uno-. De tal forma, a la Sala no le corresponde fiscalizar la apreciación del acervo probatorio realizado por las autoridades jurisdiccionales penales –sentencia número 2001-3258, de las ocho horas cincuenta y seis minutos del veintisiete de abril de dos mil uno-, ni tampoco constatar que se ha dado una correcta aplicación de la ley penal. Por consiguiente, no le compete a la Sala Constitucional verificar, entre otros aspectos, si las evidencias materiales, los testimonios y declaraciones de testigos, ofendidos o imputados, y todo otro elemento de prueba que hubiera podido existir en autos, demuestran la culpabilidad o inocencia de la persona encartada, como tampoco deben ser valorados por esta jurisdicción aspectos eminentemente materiales acontecidos o producidos en la tramitación del sumario.

En efecto, la jurisprudencia de la Sala ha sido constante en definir los alcances de esta jurisdicción, señalando en este sentido mediante sentencia número 2002-8811 de las dieciséis horas con veinte minutos del diez de septiembre del dos mil dos –reiterada, entre otras, por sentencia número 2007-18662, de las once horas diecinueve minutos del veintiuno de diciembre de dos mil siete-, que:

"[E]sta Sala no es una instancia más en el proceso penal, ni le corresponde sustituir a los jueces penales en ejercicio de sus funciones, so pena de incidir indebidamente en el ámbito de competencia de la jurisdiccional penal, en abierta contradicción con el artículo 153 de la Constitución Política. Por ello, es en el propio proceso penal que debe precisarse la procedencia de la prisión preventiva en el caso concreto de cada imputado, de conformidad a los distintos elementos de convicción existentes, a la concurrencia de las circunstancias que lo justifiquen y a su relación particular con el proceso. (…) “ (El subrayado no pertenece al original) De igual manera, en resolución 2007-003027 de las catorce horas y treinta y ocho minutos del siete de marzo del dos mil siete, dispuso:

(…)IV.- La Sala en su jurisprudencia ha manifestado que la vía constitucional, no es la competente para resolver acerca de los aspectos relacionados con la prueba de una causa penal, situación que está reservada por ley al juzgador ordinario, por lo que en ese sentido no lleva razón el aquí recurrente. En el caso en estudio, se reclama la invalidez de los actos que se han realizado en el proceso penal seguido contra la amparada, tales como el reconocimiento fotográfico, el reconocimiento físico, informes técnicos, que sustentan las medidas cautelares de prisión preventiva ordenada. Emitir un pronunciamiento estimatorio en este caso, claramente excedería la competencia que le otorgan la Constitución Política y la precitada Ley, ya que se le pide resolver sobre aspectos procesales que corresponde exclusivamente a la competencia propia de los órganos jurisdiccionales de la materia, de los cuales ésta no es otra instancia. El ordenamiento procesal penal provee de medios suficientes para canalizar las objeciones que existan con relación a la regularidad del proceso, las que pueden ser planteadas al inicio, durante y al final del juicio, quedando abierta incluso la posibilidad de recurrir del fallo en Casación. Por tanto, si se considera que en el caso concreto existen vicios en el procedimiento, de conformidad con la normativa vigente, cabe presentar la protesta ante el órgano competente, describiendo el defecto y proponiendo la solución correspondiente, en atención a las reglas de la actividad procesal defectuosa que regula el Código Procesal Penal en los artículos 175 y siguientes, y cumpliendo con el deber de lealtad que impone el ordinal 127 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo.

V.- En virtud de las consideraciones expuestas, procede declarar sin lugar el recurso, como en efecto se hace. (…)” (El subrayado no pertenece al original) III.- REFERENTE A PRUEBA PENAL. CASO CONCRETO: Después de analizar los elementos probatorios aportados este Tribunal descarta la lesión a los derechos fundamentales de los tutelados. Del informe rendido por el representante de la autoridad recurrida -que se tiene por dado bajo fe de juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción- y la prueba aportada para la resolución del asunto ha sido debidamente acreditado que ante el Juzgado Penal de Heredia se tramita la causa penal 10-003031-00059-PE contra Huber Rodríguez Rojas y Vinicio Rodríguez Rojas por el delito de robo agravado en daño de Lam Yeung Hi Cheong. Por resolución de las cero horas dos minutos del siete de agosto del dos mil diez el Juzgado Penal de Heredia ordena allanamiento, registro y secuestro en los apartamentos donde vivían los imputados, así que los vehículos que ahí se encontraren. Mediante resolución de las veinte horas cincuenta y seis minutos del siete de agosto del dos mil diez el Juzgado Penal de Heredia dicta prisión preventiva en contra de los imputados por el plazo de seis meses a vencer el siete de febrero del dos mil once. De lo criterio vertido y sostiene que las divergencias sobre las pruebas penales que existan en el expediente deben ser alegadas en la vía de legalidad u ordinaria. De manera que, las inconsistencias señaladas por las partes, sobre la procedencia o no de los allanamientos, registros y secuestros deberán ser discutidas dentro del proceso penal y no en la vía de constitucionalidad por no ser de su competencia. Por no encontrar roces de índole constitucional, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso.

IV.- PROCEDENCIA DE LA PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA EN GENERAL. Para el Derecho de la Constitución la privación de libertad de un individuo, como medida cautelar, es una medida excepcional solo posible en estricta sujeción a la ley, mediante resolución judicial fundada y en los límites indispensables para asegurar el descubrimiento de la verdad, la actuación de la ley y la protección del orden jurídico. A fin de garantizar el respeto de esos valores, la prisión preventiva de un individuo como medida cautelar, deberá ser acordada, excepcionalmente, cuando exista indicio comprobado que éste ha cometido un delito, mediante resolución judicial fundada, y en los límites indispensables para asegurar el descubrimiento de la verdad y la actuación de la ley. Asimismo, para el Juez Penal constituye un deber ineludible, al ordenar tan drástica medida, fundamentar su decisión, indicando los motivos de hecho y de derecho en que se apoya, pues no se trata de repetir los presupuestos legales que permiten la medida, sino de darles contenido, con el fin que el interesado pueda ejercer su derecho de defensa e impugnar la decisión ante el Superior.

V.- SOBRE LA FUNDAMENTACIÓN DE LA PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA. Las competencias de este Tribunal en relación con la privación de libertad mediante la imposición de estas medidas cautelares están contenidas en el artículo 24 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, y se refiere a examinar, entre otros aspectos, si existe auto de detención o prisión preventiva legalmente decretada (inciso c), o, si por algún motivo fuera indebida la privación de libertad o la medida impuesta (inciso d). Los requisitos para la procedencia de la prisión preventiva están estipulados en el artículo 239 del Código Procesal Penal, siendo el primero de éstos, la existencia de elementos de convicción suficientes como para sostener que el imputado es, con probabilidad, autor de un hecho punible o partícipe en él. Seguidamente, se analiza la presencia de los peligros procesales, sea, el de reiteración delictiva, obstaculización de la justicia y de peligro de fuga. Aunado a estos elementos, se analiza que el delito que se le atribuya al encartado esté reprimido con pena privativa de libertad. Esta medida privativa de libertad posee un carácter excepcional, que como tal, tiene fines diferentes a los dispuestos para la pena de prisión, por lo que nuestro ordenamiento jurídico procesal penal parte del principio que la prisión preventiva, solamente, puede perseguir fines de aseguramiento procesal, como los que contempla el ordinal 239 antes citado (Voto No. 009856-07 de las 14:32 horas de 17 de julio de 2007).

VI- FUNDAMENTACIÓN DE LA PRISIÓN PREVENTIVA. CASO CONCRETO: En el presente asunto, la Sala constata que la resolución de las veinte horas cincuenta y seis minutos del siete de agosto del dos mil diez del Juzgado Penal de Heredia se encuentra debidamente motivada. Se determina que la medida cautelar fue fundamentada en los artículos 238, 239, 240 y 241 del Código Procesal Penal. Se corrobora la participación de los acusados, respaldada en la declaración de testigos, los informes policiales y el reconocimiento positivo de los encartados. Señala que el allanamiento se ajusta a derecho, en el sitio se ubica el vehículo robado, objetos personales de los encartados, herramientas, llavines y objetos relacionados con el gemeleo de vehículos. Considera la existencia del peligro de fuga dado que los acusados enfrentan un proceso por robo agravado, delito que tiene una pena mínima de cinco años de prisión, por lo que no se puede aplicar la ejecución condicional de la pena. Se constata el daño causado por el robo del vehículo, los daños perpetrados a la vivienda, daño al portón, los documentos alterados y que deben ser repuestos, tales como Riteve y los derechos de circulación. Afirma que existe el peligro de obstaculización debido a que uno de los encartados pueden impedir que el testigo colabore con la Administración de Justicia, además de la reiteración delictiva por determinarse que los bienes decomisados son óptimos para la sustracción de automotores, y no como lo afirman los acusados para la elaboración de muebles. De lo expuesto, la Sala descarta que la prisión preventiva impuesta a los encartados se encuentre carente de fundamentación. En consecuencia, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso en este extremo.”