Recalification by apparent concurrence of norms in illegal transport of turtle eggsRecalificación por concurso aparente de normas en transporte ilegal de huevos de tortuga

“SOLE GROUND. […] The judgment found it proven that "On March 16, 2015, at approximately 12:30 p.m. at Playa Ostional, Santa Cruz, the accused [Name1] illegally transported and possessed within a backpack he was carrying 72 Lora turtle eggs, a product that was seized by authorities of the Servicio Nacional del Área de Conservación Tempisque in Ostional, the foregoing without the accused [Name1] having any type of permit or authorization from the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Ostional to transport or possess said turtle eggs." (sequences 11:29:40 to 11:30:21 and folio 35, the underline is not from the original). The judge classified the facts as an infraction of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura and imposed a penalty of five base salaries, based on numeral 150 subsection a) of said Law. However, the facts that were charged by the Ministerio Público were: "On March 16, 2015, at approximately 12:30 p.m. at Playa Ostional, Santa Cruz, the accused [Name1] illegally transported and possessed within a backpack he was carrying 72 turtle eggs, a product that was seized by authorities of the Servicio Nacional del Área de Conservación Tempisque in Ostional, the foregoing without the accused [Name1] having any type of permit or authorization from the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Ostional to transport or possess said turtle eggs." (Debate, sequences 09:10:04 to 09:10:50; judgment, sequences 11:26:27 to 11:27:16). The Tribunal stated that there was an apparent concurrence of offenses (concurso aparente de normas) and applied the one it considered to be the specialized norm. It found it proven that the accused was detained by officials of MINAET with 72 eggs of the Lora turtle species. It indicated that it had been demonstrated that the accused was the one who took them from their nest, as declared by two eyewitnesses, [Name3] and [Name4] (the latter an official of MINAET), who saw him crouched in the sand digging (sequences 11:42:10 to 11:45:10), he was subsequently detained, documentation from the Asociación de Desarrollo (responsible for authorizing egg extraction permits starting from the third day of the turtle's arribada) was requested, a document he said he did not have, for which he was invited to show what he carried in the backpack, which he did voluntarily, displaying 72 Lora turtle eggs, the possession and transport of turtle eggs of the indicated species being thus accredited (report and seizure folios 3 to 9, sequences 11:45:25 to 11:50:15). The accreditation of the facts has not been questioned, but rather their legal classification, as the representation of the Ministerio Público considered that the criminal type and sanction established in numeral 95 of the Ley de Vida Silvestre should have been applied, being a special and later norm, considering the Tribunal's determination to apply the regulations of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura to be incorrect. The a quo indicated there was an apparent concurrence of offenses (concurso aparente de normas) and stated that in its judgment the applicable regulation, for being special, was Article 150 subsection 1) of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura. It added that it had not been proven that the Lora turtle species was in danger of extinction (sequences 12:00:15 to 12:03:13). This Chamber considers that the appeal must be granted. The apparent concurrence of offenses (concurso aparente de normas) is provided for in Article 23 of the Código Penal and is governed by principles of speciality, subsidiarity, and absorption, that is, when the same conduct is described in more than one legal provision that mutually exclude each other, "the special norm prevails over the general one, the one that wholly contains another is preferred over the latter, and that which the law has not expressly or tacitly subordinated to another, is applied instead of the accessory one." In this regard, the Sala Tercera has stated that "...in addition to the determination of the protected legal interest, given the complexity that cases of apparent concurrence of offenses (concurso aparente de normas) can achieve, doctrine has elaborated the principles of speciality, subsidiarity, and absorption to resolve them. A relationship of speciality exists that excludes the simultaneous application of two criminal types, when one of them contains all the elements of the other, but adds at least one additional special element. For its part, subsidiarity between types can be express or tacit; in the former, the norm itself establishes it, while the latter option is determined by an analysis of the relationship between both norms. The determinant of subsidiarity is that, whether expressly or tacitly, a relationship exists between both types that assumes one is applicable only if the other is not. Lastly, absorption occurs when a crime is committed before, during, or after another more serious one, which displaces the first because it contains its wrongfulness and culpability..." (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Voto 468 of 12:09 hours of April 15, 2011, reiterated in Voto 1144 of 9:28 hours of July 4, 2014). The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles was subscribed by Costa Rica on January 31, 1997, and entered into force on August 24, 1999, with the publication of its approval by Law 7906 in La Gaceta number 186. It established the prohibition of intentional capture, retention, or killing of sea turtles, as well as domestic trade of the same, their eggs, parts, or products (Article IV subsection 2.a), and the designation of protected areas (subsection 2.d). Among the turtle species protected by this convention is the lora turtle (Anexo I subsection 5). Now then, Law 7317 of October 30, 1992, Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, was amended in several of its articles by Law 8689 of December 4, 2008, within which Articles 93 and 95 establish a prison sentence for anyone who destroys nests of animals declared in danger of extinction or with reduced populations (93 subsection a), a fine or prison sentence when the conduct takes place in official wildlife conservation areas or in duly authorized private areas to the detriment of animals not in danger of extinction or with reduced populations (93 subsection b), and also provides for a fine or prison sentence when animals, their products, and derivatives are traded, negotiated, trafficked, or brought into the country without the respective permit from the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación when the species has been declared as reduced or in danger of extinction (95 subsection a), and the ranges of fine and prison are reduced when dealing with animals or their products when they are not species in danger of extinction or populations declared as reduced (95 subsection b). This law is regulated by Decreto Número 32633-MINAE, published in La Gaceta on September 20, 2005, which establishes the fauna species that are in danger of extinction, within which the lora turtle is included (Article 29). That is to say, since the year 2005 this characteristic has been indicated in the regulation. On the other hand, the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura is from March 1, 2005, that is, prior to the amendment of the Ley de Vida Silvestre, and its regulations describe the conduct in a general manner (Article 149 subsection b) and 150 subsection a); the objective of this law being to promote and regulate fishing activity guaranteeing the protection of water resources. Now then, according to the factual framework charged by the Ministerio Público, the accused was charged with illegally transporting and possessing 72 turtle eggs without a permit or authorization from the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Ostional. That account did not establish that it was a Lora turtle, or a species in danger of extinction, nor that it was found within the Refugio de Fauna Silvestre de Ostional. The turtle species was introduced by the judge into the proven facts and the legal basis of the judgment. However, the discussion of whether it was this class of reptile or whether it was an animal in danger of extinction was not raised by the Ministerio Público, so by virtue of the principle of correlation between charge and judgment, it should not have been the subject of debate. However, the appellant's argument is valid since Article 95 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre is a later law, by virtue of the aforementioned 2008 amendment, which regulates the trade, negotiation, traffic, or bringing into the country of wild animals and their products without a permit, the sanction of subsection b) being applicable in this case, which indicates it shall be punished with a fine of one to five base salaries or a penalty when dealing with animals that are not in danger of extinction or with populations declared reduced, since, as indicated, the factors of the turtle species and other characteristics were not part of the Ministerio Público's charge. Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing and Article 11 of the Código Penal, the applicable norm to the specific case is Article 95 subsection b) of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Ministerio Público is granted, and the judgment is therefore partially annulled, solely regarding the legal classification and the penalty imposed, reclassifying the facts as the Infraction contemplated in Article 95 subsection b) of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. Likewise, the case file (expediente) is ordered to be returned to the court of origin so that, with a new composition, the penalty may be determined." The ruling considered it proven that "On March 16, 2015, at approximately 12:30 p.m. on Playa Ostional, Santa Cruz, the accused [Name1] illegally transported and possessed inside a backpack he was carrying 72 eggs of the *Lora* turtle, a product that was seized by the authorities of the Servicio Nacional del Área de Conservación Tempisque in Ostional, all without the defendant [Name1] having any type of permit or authorization from the Asociación de Desarrollo integral de Ostional to transport or possess said turtle eggs." (sequences 11:29:40 to 11:30:21 and folio 35, the underlining is not from the original). The judge classified the acts as an infraction of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura and imposed a sanction of five base salaries, based on subsection 150(a) of the aforementioned Law. However, the acts that were charged by the Ministerio Público were: "On March 16, 2015, at approximately 12:30 p.m. on Playa Ostional, Santa Cruz, the accused [Name1] illegally transported and possessed inside a backpack he was carrying 72 turtle eggs, a product that was seized by the authorities of the Servicio Nacional del Área de Conservación Tempisque in Ostional, all without the defendant [Name1] having any type of permit or authorization from the Asociación de Desarrollo integral de Ostional to transport or possess said turtle eggs." (Trial, sequences 09:10:04 to 09:10:50; judgment, sequences 11:26:27 to 11:27:16). The Court stated that there was an apparent concurrence of norms and applied the one it considered to be the specialized norm. It considered it proven that the defendant was detained by MINAET officials with 72 eggs of the *Lora* turtle species. It indicated that it had been demonstrated that the accused was the one who removed them from their nest, as declared by two eyewitnesses, [Name3] and [Name4] (the latter a MINAET official), who saw him crouched in the sand digging (sequences 11:42:10 to 11:45:10); he was subsequently detained, asked for documentation from the Asociación de Desarrollo (responsible for authorizing egg extraction permits starting on the third day of the turtle's massive arrival (arribada)), a document he said he did not have, so he was invited to show what he was carrying in the backpack, which he did voluntarily, revealing 72 *Lora* turtle eggs, thus accrediting the possession and transport of turtle eggs of the indicated species (report and seizure folios 3 to 9, sequences 11:45:25 to 11:50:15). The accreditation of the facts has not been questioned, but rather their legal classification, as the representation of the Ministerio Público considered that the criminal type and sanction established in subsection 95 of the Ley de Vida Silvestre should have been applied, being a special and later norm, deeming the Court's determination to apply the regulations of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura incorrect. The *a quo* indicated that there was an apparent concurrence of norms and pointed out that in its opinion the applicable regulation, being special, was Article 150, subsection 1) of the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura. It added that it had not been demonstrated that the *Lora* turtle species was in danger of extinction (sequences 12:00:15 to 12:03:13). This Chamber considers that the appeal must be granted. The apparent concurrence of norms is provided for in Article 23 of the Código Penal and is governed by criteria of specialty, subsidiarity, and consumption, that is, when the same conduct is described in more than one legal provision that mutually exclude each other, "the special norm prevails over the general one, the one that entirely contains another is preferred to the latter, and that which the law has not expressly or tacitly subordinated to another is applied instead of the accessory one." In this regard, the Sala Tercera has stated that "...furthermore, beyond determining the protected legal interest, given the complexity that cases of apparent concurrence of norms can reach, to resolve them, doctrine has developed the principles of specialty, subsidiarity, and consumption. A relationship of specialty that excludes the simultaneous application of two criminal types exists when one of them contains all the elements of the other but adds at least one additional special element. For its part, subsidiarity between types can be express or tacit; in the former, the norm itself establishes it, while the second option is determined by analysis of the relationship between the two norms. The determinant of subsidiarity is that, whether expressly or tacitly, a relationship exists between both types that supposes one is only applicable if the other is not. Finally, consumption occurs when a crime is committed before, during, or after another more serious one, which displaces the former by containing its injustice and culpability..." (Sala Tercera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, Voto 468 of 12:09 hours on April 15, 2011, reiterated in Voto 1144 of 9:28 hours on July 4, 2014). The Convención Interamericana para la Protección y Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas was signed by Costa Rica on January 31, 1997, and entered into force on August 24, 1999, with the publication of its approval by Ley 7906 in La Gaceta number 186. It established the prohibition of the intentional capture, retention, or killing of marine turtles, as well as their domestic trade, their eggs, parts, or products (Article IV, subsection 2.a), and the designation of protected areas (subsection 2.d). Among the species of turtles protected by this convention is the Olive Ridley sea turtle (tortuga lora) (Anexo I, subsection 5). Now then, Ley 7317 of October 30, 1992, Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, was amended in several of its articles by Law 8689 of December 4, 2008, within which Articles 93 and 95 establish a prison sentence for anyone who destroys nests of animals declared in danger of extinction or with reduced populations (93 subsection a), a fine or prison sentence when the conduct is carried out in official wildlife conservation areas or in duly authorized private areas to the detriment of animals not in danger of extinction or with reduced populations (93 subsection b), and also a fine or prison sentence is provided for when someone engages in trade, business, trafficking, or illegal animal traffic (trasiego) of animals, their products, and derivatives without the respective permit from the Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación when the species has been declared as reduced or in danger of extinction (95 subsection a), and the fine and prison sentence ranges are reduced when dealing with animals or their products that are not species in danger of extinction or populations declared as reduced (95 subsection b). This law is regulated by Decreto number 32633-MINAE, published in La Gaceta on September 20, 2005, which establishes the species of fauna that are in danger of extinction, within which the Olive Ridley sea turtle (tortuga lora) is included (Article 29). That is, since the year 2005 this characteristic has been indicated in the regulation. On the other hand, the Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura is from March 1, 2005, that is, prior to the amendment of the Ley de Vida Silvestre, and its regulations describe the conduct generally (Article 149 subsection b) and 150 subsection a); the objective of this law being to promote and regulate fishing activity while guaranteeing the protection of water resources. Now then, according to the factual framework charged by the Ministerio Público, the defendant was accused of illegally transporting and possessing 72 turtle eggs without a permit or authorization from the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Ostional. In that account, it was not established that it involved the *Lora* turtle, or a species in danger of extinction, nor that it occurred within the Refugio de Fauna Silvestre de Ostional. The turtle species was introduced by the judge within the proven facts and the reasoning of the judgment. However, the discussion of whether it involved this class of reptile or whether it was an animal in danger of extinction was not raised by the Ministerio Público, therefore, by virtue of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment, it should not have been the subject of the debate. Nevertheless, the appellant's claim is valid since Article 95 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre is a later law, by virtue of the aforementioned 2008 amendment, which regulates the trade, business, trafficking, or illegal animal traffic (trasiego) of wild animals and their products without a permit, in this case corresponding to the sanction of subsection b) which indicates that it shall be punished with a fine of one to five base salaries or a prison sentence when dealing with animals not in danger of extinction nor with populations declared reduced, since, as indicated, the factors of the turtle species and other characteristics were not part of the Ministerio Público's accusation. Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing and Article 11 of the Código Penal, the applicable norm to the specific case is Article 95, subsection b) of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Ministerio Público is granted, thus the ruling is partially annulled, solely regarding the legal classification and the sanction imposed, reclassifying the acts as the Infraction contemplated in Article 95, subsection b) of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. Likewise, the referral (reenvío) of the file to the Court of origin is ordered so that, with a new composition, the penalty is determined."

“ÚNICO. […] El fallo tuvo por probado que "El 16 de marzo de 2015 al ser aproximadamente las 12:30 horas en Playa Ostional, Santa Cruz, el encartado [Nombre1] , transportó y poseyó ilegalmente dentro de una mochila que llevaba consigo 72 huevos de tortuga Lora, producto que fue decomisado por las autoridades del Servicio Nacional del Área de Conservación Tempisque en Ostional, lo anterior sin contar el imputado [Nombre1] con ningún tipo de permiso o autorización de la Asociación de Desarrollo integral de Ostional para transportar o poseer dichos huevos de tortuga." (secuencias 11:29:40 a 11:30:21 y folio 35, el subrayado no es del original). La juzgadora calificó los hechos como infracción a la ley de Pesca y Acuicultura e impuso la pena de cinco salarios base, con fundamento en el numeral 150 inciso a) de la Ley referida. Empero, los hechos que fueron acusados por el Ministerio Público fueron: "El 16 de marzo de 2015 al ser aproximadamente las 12:30 horas en Playa Ostional, Santa Cruz, el encartado [Nombre1] , transportó y poseyó ilegalmente dentro de una mochila que llevaba consigo 72 huevos de tortuga, producto que fue decomisado por las autoridades del Servicio Nacional del Área de Conservación Tempisque en Ostional, lo anterior sin contar el imputado [Nombre1] con ningún tipo de permiso o autorización de la Asociación de Desarrollo integral de Ostional para transportar o poseer dichos huevos de tortuga." (Debate, secuencias 09:10:04 a 09:10:50; sentencia, secuencias 11:26:27 a 11:27:16). El Tribunal expresó que existía un concurso aparente de normas y aplicó la que consideró era la norma especializada. Tuvo por probado que el encartado fue detenido por funcionarios del MINAET con 72 huevos de la especie tortuga Lora. Indicó que había quedado demostrado que el acusado fue quien los sacó de su nido, pues así lo declararon dos testigos presenciales, [Nombre3] y [Nombre4] (este último funcionario del MINAET), quienes lo vieron agachado en la arena excavando (secuencias 11:42:10 a 11:45:10), posteriormente fue detenido, se le pidió documentación de la Asociación de Desarrollo (encargada de autorizar los permisos de extracción de huevos a partir del tercer día de la arribada de la tortuga), documento que dijo no tener, por lo que fue invitado a mostrar lo que andaba en la mochila, lo cual hizo voluntariamente, enseñando 72 huevos de tortuga Lora, quedando acreditada la posesión y transporte de huevos de tortuga de la especie señalada, (informe y decomiso folios 3 a 9, secuencias 11:45:25 a 11:50:15). La acreditación de los hechos no se ha cuestionado, sino su calificación jurídica pues la representación del Ministerio Público consideró que debió aplicarse el tipo penal y sanción establecidos en el numeral 95 de la Ley de Vida Silvestre por ser norma especial y posterior, estimando incorrecto la determinación del Tribunal de aplicar la normativa de la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura. El a quo indicó que había un concurso aparente de normas y señaló que en su criterio la normativa a aplicar por ser especial era el artículo 150 inciso 1) de la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura. Agregó, que no se había demostrado que la especie de tortuga Lora estuviera en peligro de extinción (secuencias 12:00:15 a 12:03:13). Considera esta Cámara que el recurso de apelación debe declararse con lugar. El concurso aparente de normas está previsto en el artículo 23 del Código Penal y se rige por criterios de especialidad, subsidiariedad y consunción, es decir, que cuando una misma conducta esté descrita en más de una disposición legal que se excluyen entre sí, "la norma especial prevalece sobre la general, la que contiene íntegramente a otra se prefiere a ésta y aquella que la ley no haya subordinado expresa o tácitamente a otra, se aplica en vez de la accesoria". Al respecto, la Sala Tercera ha referido que "...además, de la determinación del bien jurídico protegido, dada la complejidad que pueden alcanzar los casos de concurso aparente de normas, para resolverlos la doctrina ha elaborado los principios de especialidad, subsidiariedad y consunción. Existe una relación de especialidad que excluye la aplicación simultánea de dos tipos penales, cuando uno de ellos contiene todos los elementos del otro, pero agrega al menos un elemento adicional especial. Por su parte, la subsidiariedad entre tipos puede ser expresa o tácita, en la primera la propia norma lo establece, mientras que la segunda opción se determina por análisis de la relación de ambas normas. La determinante de la subsidiariedad es que, ya sea de forma expresa o tácita, existe una relación entre ambos tipos que supone uno sólo es aplicable si el otro no lo es. Por último, la consunción ocurre cuando un delito se comete antes, durante o después de otro más grave, que desplaza al primero por contener su injusto y culpabilidad..." (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, voto 468 de 12:09 horas de 15 de abril de 2011, reiterado en el voto 1144 de 9:28 horas de 4 de julio de 2014). La Convención Interamericana para la Protección y Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas, fue suscrita por Costa Rica el 31 de enero de 1997 y entró en vigencia a partir del 24 de agosto de 1999 con la publicación de su aprobación por ley 7906 en la Gaceta número 186. En ella se estableció la prohibición de la captura, retención o muerte intencionales de las tortugas marinas, así como del comercio doméstico de las mismas, de sus huevos, partes o productos (artículo IV inciso 2.a), y la designación de áreas protegidas (inciso 2.d). Dentro de las especies de tortugas protegidas por esta convención está la tortuga lora (anexo I inciso 5). Ahora bien, la Ley 7317 de 30 de octubre de 1992 de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, fue reformada en varios de sus artículos por ley 8689 del 4 de diciembre de 2008, dentro de los cuales los artículos 93 y 95 establecen, pena de prisión a quien destruya nidos en de animales declarados en peligro de extinción o poblaciones reducidas (93 inciso a), pena de multa o prisión cuando la conducta se realice en las áreas oficiales de conservación de la vida silvestre o en las áreas privadas debidamente autorizadas en perjuicio de animales que no se encuentre en peligro de extinción o poblaciones reducidas (93 inciso b) y también se prevé pena de multa o prisión cuando se comercien, negocien, trafiquen o trasieguen animales, sus productos y derivados sin el permiso respectivo del Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación cuando la especie ha sido declarada como reducida o en peligro de extinción (95 inciso a), y se reducen los rangos de multa y prisión cuando se trate de animales o sus productos cuando no se trate de especies en peligro de extinción o poblaciones declaradas como reducidas (95 inciso b). Esta ley se encuentra reglamentada por el Decreto número 32633-MINAE, publicado en La Gaceta el 20 de setiembre de 2005, el cual establece las especies de fauna que se encuentran en peligro de extinción, dentro de las cuales se incluye la tortuga lora (artículo 29). Es decir, desde el año 2005 esta característica está señalada en el reglamento. Por otra parte, la Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura es del primero de marzo de 2005, o sea, anterior a la reforma de la Ley de Vida Silvestre, y su normativa describe la conducta en forma general (artículo 149 inciso b) y 150 inciso a); siendo el objetivo de esta ley fomentar y regular la actividad pesquera garantizando la protección del recurso hídrico. Ahora bien, de acuerdo al cuadro fáctico acusado por el Ministerio Público, al encartado se le acusó de transportar y poseer ilegalmente 72 huevos de tortugas sin permiso o autorización de la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Ostional. En dicho relato no se estableció que se tratara de la tortuga Lora , o de una especie en peligro de extinción, ni que se encontrara dentro del Refugio de Fauna Silvestre de Ostional. La especie de la tortuga fue introducida por la juzgadora dentro de los hechos probados y la fundamentación de la sentencia. Sin embargo, la discusión de si se trataba de esta clase de reptil o si era si era un animal en peligro de extinción, no fue planteado por el Ministerio Público, por lo que en virtud del principio de correlación entre acusación y sentencia no debió ser objeto del debate. Sin embargo, el alegato de la recurrente es válido ya que el artículo 95 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, es ley posterior, en virtud de la reforma del 2008 referida, la cual regula el comercio, negocio, tráfico o trasiego de animales silvestres y sus productos sin permiso, correspondiendo en este caso la sanción del inciso b) que indica que se castigará con pena de multa de uno a cinco salarios base o pena cuando se trata de animales que no se encuentran en peligro de extinción ni con poblaciones declaradas reducidas, pues como se indicó los factores de la especie de tortuga y otras características no fueron parte de la acusación del Ministerio Público. Por lo que de conformidad con lo expuesto y el artículo 11 del Código Penal, la norma aplicable al caso concreto es el artículo 95 inciso b) de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. Por consiguiente, se declara con lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto por el Ministerio Público, por lo que se anula parcialmente el fallo, únicamente en cuanto a la calificación jurídica y la pena impuesta, recalificando los hechos a la Infracción contemplada en el artículo 95 inciso b) de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. Asimismo, se ordena el reenvío del expediente al Tribunal de origen para que con una nueva integración se fije la pena.”