Validity of video recorded by conversation participant and submitted by indirect victimValidez de video grabado por partícipe de conversación y aportado por ofendido indirecto

“**II. The Court proceeds to grant the argument presented.** This Chamber observes that the central issue of the claim lies in the manner in which the inclusion of a video was analyzed. In this video, one can observe the conversation that the accused Luis Díaz Montero—who at the date of the charged acts was serving as a judicial officer at the Criminal Trial Court of Puntarenas—had with a third party unknown to the proceedings, so that said judicial officer would provide collaboration and proceed to make any essential evidence disappear from the preliminary criminal proceedings (sumaria penal) 09-200708-0431-PE, thereby seeking impunity for the subjects being investigated in said criminal proceedings, all in exchange for an unspecified sum of money. (cf. 260 front and back). This video was declared by the Sentence Appeals Court of San Ramón to be evidence illegitimately incorporated into the proceedings, as the essential formalities dictated by law were violated because the origin and participation of the person who captured the conversation held in a private space, as well as the identity of the person who delivered the video to the competent authorities, were unknown. In this regard, the Sentence Appeals Court, concerning the illegality of the challenged evidence, ruled in relevant part: “[…] first of all, it is clear that the genesis of the video recording is unknown; it is not known who and under what circumstances proceeded to make it. Its origin is not functional or a product of the investigation, as it arrives at the investigation by virtue of confidential information, the source of which is not identified.” (cf. f. 323). And the appellate court proceeds to conduct an analysis regarding the formalities that must be carried out, according to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, number 7425 of August 9, 1994. This article establishes the legality and, therefore, the possibility of validly using said evidentiary element in the judicial process. In this way, it states: “As can be seen in terms of the matter under investigation, there would have been no problem here, as this is an investigation related to the Law on Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, Money Laundering, and Related Activities; however, there is absolutely no doubt that this conversation that took place in the present case was carried out inside a vehicle and that this qualifies as a ‘private space’ that required judicial authorization for its legitimate capture. Even in the subsequent articles of the legislation we are discussing, a whole series of formalities for the resolution and the manner of executing the intervention are established, which must be met for it to have a satisfactory result and for the constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy to be adequately protected.” (cf. 323 back). It even proceeds to analyze a potential atypical conduct by the unknown third person in the present proceedings, who proceeded with the recording and anonymous delivery to the judicial authorities of the conversation held by the accused Díaz Montero here and another unknown subject. This is done by referencing the provisions of Article 198 of the Penal Code, regarding the improper capture of verbal statements. The appellate court continues, establishing within its sustained analysis of the illegality of said evidentiary element that: “In the particular case before us, there is no doubt whatsoever that the video sent to the Judicial Investigation Agency is the capture of verbal statements between persons present, without due judicial authorization and carried out in a private space, for which reason it was evidently not a legitimate evidentiary means to be used to determine what happened; it is spurious evidence that should have been suppressed from the debate and the adversarial proceedings. In addition to this, this evidence is incorporated into the process in clear contravention of what is established by the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications No. 7425 of August 9, 1994, to the extent that, firstly, it was not ordered by a competent authority and, secondly, regarding its origin, given that it is affirmed or taken as true that it is confidential, that is, it originated from an act of a private individual that would constitute an unlawful act, i.e., a criminal offense, such as the crime provided for in Article 198 of the Penal Code.” (cf. f. 323 back and 324 front). It is with respect to this analysis that Licentiate Chistian Quirós Alfaro, in his capacity as representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público), proceeds to appeal before this Court, arguing that the Sentence Appeals Court erred in its reasoning, as it omitted to analyze and therefore apply the exception that the same Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, number 7425, establishes in its second paragraph of Article 29. The recording was made by one of the participants in the conversation, which is why it could be contributed to the proceedings without the need to follow the guidelines established in Article 9 and following of said law, and could even be brought before the judicial authorities by an indirect victim given that it involves a multi-offense crime, thus considering that the evidence in question should be legitimately assessed in the criminal proceedings, contrary to what was held by the Sentence Appeals Court, a position shared by this Court of Cassation. As seen in the second paragraph of Article 29 of the cited law: “When the person who participates in an oral, written, or other type of communication, through which a crime defined by law is committed, records or retains it, this may be presented by the harmed person before the judicial or police authorities for the corresponding investigation.” It is considered established that the evidentiary element under analysis was contributed to the judicial authorities under a condition of confidentiality, as can be extracted from the trial judgment itself, specifically from the statement of Officer Randall González Morales, when it was indicated that: “In the case under analysis, according to the statement given in the debate by Officer Randall González Morales, as well as the Preliminary Police Report IP-067-EN-12 —f. 2 to 7-, the present case began with confidential information received at the Offices of the Judicial Investigation Agency, which was even processed under internal number 096-EN-12, and at the same time, also received confidentially, a compact disc containing a video and audio recording. […]. In another vein, it is necessary to note that confidential information does not constitute evidence; it is a simple alert about the possible commission of a criminal act, which must be analyzed and corroborated at the police level. Thus, what does constitute an important evidentiary element in this case is the video that was provided along with the aforementioned communication, a video that, as is appropriate in these cases, was reviewed by the officers assigned to the case in order to establish whether there are grounds to initiate an investigation.” (Cf. f. 261 back and 262, the underlining is supplied). In this way, it can be seen that the provision of the video to the judicial authorities was carried out by someone who can be established as an indirect victim. This consideration can be linked to the fact of facing a legal situation involving the commission of a multi-offense crime committed against the Administration of Justice. This particularity is of utmost importance for the application of the exception established in Article 29 ibidem. The oversight and observance of the duty of compliance in public functions concerns the entire population. The duty of probity, not only within the administration of justice but in any area of Public Administration, entails a level of vigilance and protection by the citizenry in general and is not solely the responsibility of the authorities. In this sense, it is of primary importance to be facing a criminal type that implies a direct injury against the Administration of Justice, of a multi-offense type, in which the protection of public service and the duty of probity of its officials is of public interest, where the citizenry is called to be an additional oversight element of state functions, and this is a circumstance that is even protected by law, by establishing the confidentiality of complaints made by the population. This is an extremely relevant aspect, as one more tool in the fight to attack corruption in Public Administration. One can even visualize the jurisdictional effort that the country has made to incentivize and protect citizens, so that they proceed to cooperate and report acts they consider irregular in the public administration in general and that violate the intrinsic duty of probity in the proper development of public functions. A jurisdictional effort that is even reflected in the protection and confidentiality granted to the citizen in the complaints and contributions made, both in administrative and judicial venues. In this way, national legislation, in its fight against corruption in public functions, delimits said special protection for the citizenry, establishing in Article 8 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Functions: “Protection of the rights of the good-faith complainant and confidentiality of the information that initiates the administrative procedure. The Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), the Administration, and the internal audit departments of public institutions and companies shall maintain confidentiality regarding the identity of citizens who, in good faith, present complaints about acts of corruption to their offices. […] Persons who, in good faith, report the acts of corruption described in the Penal Code, Law No. 4573, and in this Law, shall be protected by the administrative police authorities, in accordance with the legal mechanisms provided for such purpose, at the request of a party.” The particularity of the crime investigated here is that it protects the duty of probity in public functions, by reproaching the potential procurement of impunity for subjects participating in a case pursued for drug trafficking (Article 62 of the Law on Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, and Related Activities). Being a crime committed against the Administration of Justice, and therefore against the Public Administration in general, it has the particularity that the citizenry is the controller of public functions, being indirect victims in the protection of collective interests and the fight against corruption. In such a way, this Chamber considers it established that the exception stipulated in Article 29 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications was not applied by the appellate court. This article refers to the right that the harmed person has to proceed to record and contribute those communications through which the commission of a crime is proven. As a requirement, the norm alludes to the fact that such evidentiary contribution must be carried out by a harmed person, a circumstance that, given the characteristics of the protected interest, is fully met, as it involves a collective interest, and the video in question was contributed to the judicial authorities by what would be called an indirect victim. This aspect makes the use of said evidence, contributed by an indirect victim, valid and effective within the present criminal proceedings. Regarding the scope of the exception established in Article 29 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, this Chamber has already indicated that: “Paragraph two of Article 29 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications establishes the following: ‘When the recipient of a communication, through which a crime defined by the Law is being committed, records or retains it, this may be presented before the judicial or police authorities for the corresponding investigation.’ As can be appreciated, it is extracted that the ‘owner,’ so to speak, of a communication is whoever receives it. The responsibility falls upon him to present it as an element for an investigation. Clearly, if it is presented, it becomes an evidentiary element that must be discussed and to which the corresponding weight must be given after assessing it according to the maxims of correct human understanding.” (Judgment number 48-2001, at 11:00 hours, on January 12, 2001, the underlining is supplied). In the present criminal proceedings, it is clear that the video was recorded by one of the participants in the conversation, specifically the subject who asks the accused Díaz Montero to carry out actions aimed at making evidence existing in criminal case Nº 09-200708-0431-PE disappear. Therefore, this subject had the capacity to capture the conversation in which he was a participant, taking on primary relevance what is indicated in this resolution, insofar as the contribution made of this capture of what happened is presented before the judicial authorities by a person who holds the status of a harmed party, it being established that the third party who came to present said video to the authorities is an indirect victim of the facts, as it is a multi-offense crime against the Administration of Justice, in which any citizen has the capacity and the right to report facts of that nature, as previously stated. For the reasons set forth above, the argument submitted by the prosecution must be accepted. Consequently, the appeal of cassation filed is granted, as it is established that the Sentence Appeals Court failed to apply the exception established in Article 29, second paragraph, of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, number 7425 of August 9, 1994. As a result, resolution 253-2015, issued by the Sentence Appeals Court of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela at 3:10 p.m. on April 28, 2015, is set aside. The remand of the present matter to the Appeals Court is ordered, since it ruled on grounds different from those appealed, so that, with a new composition, it may proceed to hear the claim raised. Notify.” **II. The argued claim is hereby granted.** This Chamber observes that the central issue of the claim lies in the manner in which the incorporation of a video was analyzed. In this video, one can observe a conversation between the accused Luis Díaz Montero, who at the time of the alleged acts was serving as a judicial official in the Criminal Trial Court of Puntarenas, and a third-party subject unknown in the proceedings, regarding said judicial official providing collaboration to make any essential evidence disappear within criminal summary proceeding 09-200708-0431-PE and thus procure impunity (procuración de impunidad) for the subjects under investigation in said criminal proceeding, all in exchange for an unspecified sum of money (cfr. 260 frt and vto). The Court of Appeals of Sentencing of San Ramón declared that this video had been illegitimately incorporated into the proceedings, as the essential formalities dictated by law were violated due to the unknown origin and participation of the person who captured the conversation held in a private enclosure (recinto privado), as well as the identity of the person who proceeded to deliver the video to the competent authorities. In this regard, the Court of Appeals of Sentencing, concerning the illegality of the questioned evidence, ruled in the relevant part: “[…] *firstly, it is clear that the genesis of the video recording is unknown; it is not known who and under what circumstances proceeded to make it; its origin is not functional or a product of the investigation, but rather it arrives at the investigation by virtue of confidential information, the source of which is not identified*.” (cfr. f 323). And the *ad quem* proceeds to conduct an analysis regarding the formalities that must be carried out, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications (Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones), number 7425 of August 9, 1994. This is because said article establishes legitimacy and, therefore, the possibility of validly using said evidentiary element in the judicial process. Thus, it states that: “*As can be seen, in order to the investigative matter here, there would have been no problem, as it involves an investigation related to the Law on narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, unauthorized use drugs, money laundering, and related activities (Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, legitimación de capitales y actividades conexas); however, there is absolutely no doubt that this conversation carried out in the present case took place inside a vehicle and that this qualifies as a “private enclosure” that required judicial authorization for its legitimate capture. Even in the subsequent articles of the legislation we are commenting on, an entire series of formalities for the resolution and the manner of executing the intervention are established, which must be fulfilled for it to yield a satisfactory result and for the constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy to be properly protected*.” (cfr. 323 vto). It even proceeds to analyze an eventual atypical conduct by the unknown third person in the present process, who proceeded with the recording and anonymous delivery to the judicial authorities of the conversation held by the accused herein, Díaz Montero, and another unknown subject. This by referencing the provisions of Article 198 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal), regarding the improper capture of verbal communications. The *ad quem* continues, establishing within the sustained analysis of the illegality of said evidentiary element that: “*In the particular case before us, there is no doubt whatsoever that the video sent to the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ) is the capture of verbal communications among present parties without the required judicial authorization and conducted in a private enclosure, for which reason it was evidently not a legitimate evidentiary means to be used to determine what happened; it is spurious evidence that should have been suppressed from the debate and the adversarial proceedings. In addition to this, this evidence was incorporated into the proceedings in clear contravention of the provisions of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications No. 7425 of August 9, 1994, to the extent that, firstly, it was not ordered by a competent authority and, secondly, regarding its origin, given that it is affirmed or taken as certain that it is confidential, that is, it originated from an act of a private individual that would constitute an unlawful act, that is, a criminal act, such as the crime provided for in Article 198 of the Criminal Code*.” (cfr. f. 323 vto and 324 fte). It is regarding this analysis that Attorney Chistian Quirós Alfaro, in his capacity as representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), proceeds to appeal before this Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals of Sentencing erred in its reasoning, as it omits to analyze and therefore apply the exception that the same Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, number 7425, establishes in its Article 29, second paragraph. The recording was made by one of the participants (intervinientes) in the conversation, which is why it could be contributed to the process without the need to follow the guidelines established in Article 9 and subsequent articles of said law, and could even be contributed before the judicial authorities by an indirect offended party, as it involves a multi-offensive crime (delito pluriofensivo), thus considering that the evidence in question should be legitimately assessed in the criminal process, contrary to what was held by the Court of Appeals of Sentencing, a position shared by this Court of Cassation. As can be seen in the second paragraph of Article 29 of the cited law: “*When the person who participates in an oral, written, or other type of communication, through which a crime typified by law is being committed, records or preserves it, this may be presented by the offended party (persona ofendida) before the judicial or police authorities for the corresponding investigation*.” It is considered established that the evidentiary element under analysis was contributed to the judicial authorities under a condition of confidentiality, as can be extracted from the trial judgment itself, specifically from the statement of Officer Randall González Morales, where it is indicated that: “*In the case under analysis, according to the statement given in the debate by Officer Randall González Morales, as well as the Preliminary Police Report IP-067-EN-12 —f 2 a 7—, the present case was initiated by confidential information received at the Offices of the Judicial Investigation Organization, which was even processed under internal number 096-EN-12, and in turn, a compact disc with a video and audio recording was also received confidentially. […]. In another vein, it is necessary to note that confidential information does not constitute evidence; it is a simple alert regarding the possible commission of a criminal act, which must be analyzed and corroborated at the police level, such that what does constitute an important evidentiary element in the present cause, is the video that was contributed along with the cited communication, a video which, as is appropriate in these cases, was reviewed by the officers assigned to the case in order to establish whether there are grounds to initiate an investigation*” (Cfr. f. 261 vto and 262, underlining supplied). In this way, it can be seen that the contribution of the video to the judicial authorities was carried out by someone who can be established as an indirect offended party. This consideration can be linked by being faced with a legal situation that involves the commission of a multi-offensive type of crime, committed against the Administration of Justice (Administración de Justicia). This particularity is of utmost importance for the application of the exception established in Article 29 *ibidem*. The oversight and observance of the duty of compliance in the public function concerns the entire population in general. The duty of probity (deber de probidad), not only within the administration of justice, but in any sphere of the Public Administration (Administración Pública), entails a level of vigilance and protection by the citizenry in general and is not the exclusive responsibility of the authorities. In this sense, it is of primordial importance to be faced with a criminal type that implies a direct injury against the Administration of Justice, of a multi-offensive type, in which the protection of the public service and the duty of probity of its officials is a matter of public interest, where the citizenry is called upon to be an additional oversight element of state functions, and this is a circumstance that is even protected by law, by establishing the confidentiality of complaints made by the population. This is a highly relevant aspect, as one more tool in the fight to attack corruption in the Public Administration. One can even observe the jurisdictional-level effort that the country has made to incentivize and protect citizens, so that they proceed to cooperate and report acts they consider irregular in the public administration in general and that violate the duty of probity intrinsic to the proper development of the public function. A jurisdictional effort that is even reflected in the protection and confidentiality granted to the citizen regarding the complaints and contributions they make, whether in administrative or judicial proceedings. In this way, national legislation, in its fight against corruption in the public function, delimits this special protection towards the citizenry, establishing in Article 8 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function (Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública): “*Protection of the rights of the good-faith whistleblower and confidentiality of the information that originates the opening of the administrative procedure. The Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), the Administration, and the internal audit offices of public institutions and companies shall maintain confidentiality regarding the identity of citizens who, in good faith, file complaints for acts of corruption before their offices. […] Persons who, in good faith, report acts of corruption described in the Criminal Code, Law No. 4573, and in this Law, shall be protected by the administrative police authorities, in accordance with the legal mechanisms provided for this purpose, upon petition of the party*.” The particularity of the crime investigated here is that it protects the duty of probity in the public function, by reproaching the eventual procurement of impunity for subjects involved in a case followed for drug trafficking (Article 62 of the Law on narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, unauthorized use drugs, and related activities). As it is a crime committed against the Administration of Justice, and therefore against the Public Administration in general, it has the particularity that the citizenry is the comptroller of the public function, being indirect offended parties in the protection of collective interests and the fight against corruption. Therefore, this Chamber has established that the exception stipulated in Article 29 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications was not applied by the *ad quem*. Since said articulated refers to the right held by the offended party to proceed to record and contribute those communications through which the commission of a crime is proven. As a requirement, the norm alludes to the fact that such evidentiary contribution must be carried out by an offended party, a circumstance that, given the characteristics of the protected legal interest, is fully met, as it involves a collective interest, and the video in question was contributed to the judicial authorities by what would be termed an indirect offended party. An aspect that makes the use of said evidence, contributed by an indirect offended party, valid and effective within the present criminal process. With respect to the scope of the exception established in numeral 29 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, this Chamber has already indicated that: “*Numeral 29 of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications establishes in its second paragraph the following: “When the recipient of a communication, through which a crime typified by the Law is being committed, records or conserves it, this may be presented before the judicial or police authorities for the corresponding investigation.” As can be appreciated, it is inferred that the “owner,” so to speak, of a communication is the one who receives it. The responsibility of presenting it as an element for an investigation lies upon him. It is clear that if he presents it, it becomes an evidentiary element that must be discussed and to which the corresponding value must be given after assessing it according to the maxims of sound human understanding.*” (Judgment number 48-2001, of 11:00 a.m., of January 12, 2001, underlining supplied). In the present criminal process, it is clear that the video was recorded by one of the participants (intervinientes) in the conversation, specifically the subject who requested that the accused Díaz Montero carry out actions aimed at making existing evidence in criminal case 09-200708-0431-PE disappear. Therefore, this subject had the capacity to capture the conversation in which he was a participant, and what is indicated in this resolution is of primary relevance, insofar as the contribution made of said capture of the events was presented before the judicial authorities by a person who holds the condition of offended party, establishing that the third party who ends up presenting said video to the authorities is an indirect offended party of the facts, as it involves a multi-offensive crime against the Administration of Justice, in which any citizen has the capacity and the right to report acts of this nature, as has been stated. It is for the reasons set forth above that the allegation appealed by the prosecutorial representation must be accepted. Consequently, the appeal for cassation (recurso de casación) filed is granted, as it has been established that the Court of Appeals of Sentencing failed to apply the exception established in Article 29, second paragraph, of the Law on Registration, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, number 7425 of August 9, 1994. Consequently, resolution 253-2015, issued by the Court of Appeals of Sentencing Penal of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela at 3:10 p.m. on April 28, 2015, is annulled. The remittal (reenvío) of this matter before the Court of Appeals is ordered, as it ruled for reasons different from those appealed, so that, with a new composition, it may proceed to hear the claim raised. Notifíquese.” In this sense, it is of primordial importance to be faced with a criminal offense that implies a direct injury against the Administration of Justice, of a multi-offensive (pluriofensivo) type, in which the protection of the public service and the duty of probity of its officials holds a public interest, where the citizenry is called to be an additional oversight element of state functions, and this is a circumstance that is even protected by law, by establishing the confidentiality of complaints made by the population. An aspect of utmost relevance, as one more tool in the fight to attack corruption in the Public Administration.

One can even visualize the jurisdictional-level effort that the country has made to incentivize and protect citizens, so that they proceed to cooperate and report acts they consider irregular in the public administration in general and that violate the duty of probity intrinsic to the proper development of the public function. A jurisdictional effort that is even embodied in the protection and confidentiality granted to the citizen regarding the complaints and contributions they make, both in administrative and judicial venues. In this way, national legislation, in its fight against corruption in the public function, delimits that special protection toward the citizenry, establishing in Article 8 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function: “*Protection of the rights of the good-faith complainant and confidentiality of the information that gives rise to the opening of the administrative procedure. The Comptroller General of the Republic, the Administration, and the internal audit offices of public institutions and companies shall maintain confidentiality regarding the identity of citizens who, in good faith, present complaints for acts of corruption before their offices. […] Persons who, in good faith, report the acts of corruption described in the Penal Code, Law No. 4573, and in this Law, shall be protected by the administrative police authorities, in accordance with the legal mechanisms provided for such effect, upon petition of a party*.”.

The particularity of the crime investigated here is that it protects the duty of probity in the public function, by reproaching the potential procurement of impunity for subjects participating in a proceeding for drug trafficking (Article 62 Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, and Related Activities). Being a crime committed against the Administration of Justice, and therefore against the Public Administration in general, it holds the particularity that the citizenry is the comptroller of the public function, being indirect victims (ofendidos indirectos) in the protection of collective interests and the fight against corruption. In such a way that this Chamber has established that the exception stipulated in Article 29 of the Law on the Recording, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications was unapplied by the *ad quem* court. Since that article refers to the right held by the offended person (persona ofendida) to record and provide those communications through which the commission of a crime is proven. As a requirement, the norm alludes to the fact that such evidentiary contribution must be carried out by an offended person, a circumstance that, given the characteristics of the protected good, is fully met, as it involves a collective interest, and the video in question was provided to the judicial authorities by what would be called an indirect victim. An aspect that renders the use of said evidence, provided by an indirect victim, valid and effective within the present criminal process.

Regarding the scope of the exception established in Article 29 of the Law on the Recording, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, this Chamber has already indicated that: “*Article 29 of the Law on the Recording, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications establishes in its second paragraph the following: “<u>When the recipient of a communication, through which a crime typified by the Law is being committed, records or conserves it</u>, <u>it may be presented before the judicial or police authorities for the corresponding investigation</u>”. <u>As can be appreciated, it is extracted that the “owner,” so to speak, of a communication is the person who receives it. Upon that person rests the responsibility of presenting it as an element for an investigation</u>.<u> It is clear that if it is presented, it becomes an evidentiary element that must be discussed and to which the corresponding value must be given after appraising it according to the maxims of correct human understanding</u>.*” (Judgment number 48-2001, at 11:00 hours, of January 12, 2001, the underlining is supplied).

In the present criminal process, it is clear that the video was recorded by one of the participants (intervinientes) in the conversation, specifically the subject who asks the accused Díaz Montero to carry out actions aimed at making evidence existing in criminal case No. 09-200708-0431-PE disappear. Therefore, this subject had the faculty to capture the conversation in which he was a participant, with what is indicated in this resolution taking on primordial relevance, insofar as the contribution made of said capture of what happened is presented before the judicial authorities by a person who holds the condition of offended party, it being established that the third party who comes to present said video before the authorities is an indirect victim of the facts, as it is a multi-offensive (pluriofensivo) crime against the Administration of Justice, in which any citizen has the faculty and the right to report acts of that nature, as has been stated.

It is for the reasons set forth above that the allegation appealed by the prosecutorial representation must be accepted. Consequently, the cassation appeal filed is granted, it being established that the Sentencing Appeals Court unapplied the exception established in Article 29, second paragraph, of the Law on the Recording, Seizure, and Examination of Private Documents and Intervention of Communications, number 7425 of August 9, 1994. As a result, resolution 253-2015, issued by the Sentencing Appeals Court of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, at 15:10 hours on April 28, 2015, is set aside. The remand of this matter is ordered before the Appeals Court, since it ruled on grounds different from those appealed, so that, with a new panel, it may proceed to hear the claim raised. Notify (Notifíquese).”

“II. Se procede a declarar con lugar el alegato expuesto. Aprecia esta Sala, que el tema central del reclamo, radica en la forma en que fue analizada la incorporación de un video, en el cual se logra apreciar la conversación que tuvo el imputado Luis Díaz Montero, que para la fecha de los hechos acusados se desempeñaba como funcionario judicial en el Tribunal Penal de Puntarenas, con un tercer sujeto desconocido en el proceso, para que dicho funcionario judicial, prestara colaboración y procediera a desaparecer cualquier prueba esencial dentro de la sumaria penal 09-200708-0431-PE y así procurar la impunidad de los sujetos que se investigaban el dicho proceso penal, todo esto a cambio de una suma de dinero no especificada. (cfr. 260 frt y vto). Siendo que tal video fue declarado por parte del Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia de San Ramón, como prueba incorporada de manera ilegítima al proceso, al vulnerarse las formalidades esenciales que la ley dictamina por desconocerse el origen y participación de la persona que captó la conversación realizada en un recinto privado, así como la identidad de la persona que procedió con la entrega del video a las autoridades competentes. En este sentido el Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia, en lo referente a la ilegalidad de la prueba cuestionada, dictaminó en lo que interesa: “[…] en primer lugar, es claro que la génesis de la grabación del video es desconocida, no se sabe quién y en qué circunstancias procedió a efectuar la misma, su origen no es funcional o producto de la investigación, sino que el mismo arriba a esta en virtud de una información confidencial, de la cual no se identifica la fuente.” (cfr. f 323). Y procede el ad quem a realizar un análisis con respecto a las formalidades que se deben de llevar a cabo, al tenor de lo establecido en el artículo 9 de la Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones, número 7425 del 9 de agosto de 1994. Ya que dicho artículo establece legitimidad y por ende la posibilidad de utilizar válidamente en el proceso judicial dicho elemento probatorio. De esta forma indica que: “Como puede verse en orden a la materia de investigación aquí no habría existido problema, pues se trata de una investigación relacionada con la Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, legitimación de capitales y actividades conexas, sin embargo, no queda absolutamente ninguna duda de que esa conversación que se llevó a cabo en el presente caso se realizó a lo interno de un vehículo y que este califica como un “recinto privado” que requería de una autorización jurisdiccional para su captación legítima. Incluso, en los artículos subsecuentes de la legislación que comentamos se establece toda una serie de formalidades de la resolución y la forma de ejecución de la intervención que deben cumplirse para que la misma tenga un resultado satisfactorio y se tutele adecuadamente la garantía constitucional del derecho a la intimidad.” (cfr.323 vto). Procediendo incluso a analizar una eventual conducta atípica, de la tercera persona desconocida en el presente proceso, que procedió con la grabación y entrega de forma anónima a las autoridades judiciales, de la conversación sostenida por el aquí imputado Díaz Montero y otro sujeto desconocido. Esto al referenciar lo establecido en el artículo 198 del Código Penal, en lo que respecta a las captaciones indebidas de manifestaciones verbales. Continúa el ad quem estableciendo dentro del análisis sostenido de la ilegalidad de dicho elemento probatorio que: “En el caso particular que aquí nos ocupa, no hay ninguna duda en cuanto a que el video hecho llegar al Organismo de Investigación Judicial es la captación de manifestaciones verbales entre presentes sin la debida autorización jurisdiccional y realizada en un recinto privado, por lo cual evidentemente, no era un medio probatorio legítimo a ser empleado para determinar lo sucedido, se trata de prueba espúrea que debió haber sido suprimida del debate y del contradictorio. Aunado a ello esta prueba se incorpora al proceso en clara contravención a lo establecido por la Ley de Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones No. 7425 de 09 de agosto de 1994, en la medida en que, en primer lugar no fue ordenada por una autoridad competente y, en segundo lugar, en cuanto su origen, dado que se afirma o se tiene como cierto que es confidencial, es decir, se originó en un acto de un sujeto particular que constituirá un acto ilícito, es decir, un hecho delictivo, como seria el delito previsto en el articulo 198 del Código Penal.” (cfr. f. 323 vto y 324 fte). Sobre tal análisis, es que el licenciado Chistian Quirós Alfaro, en su condición de representante del Ministerio Público, procede a recurrir ante esta Sede, argumentando que el Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia se equivoca en su razonamiento, ya que omite analizar y por ende aplicar la excepción que la misma Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones, número 7425, establece en su artículo 29 párrafo segundo. La grabación fue realizada por uno de los intervinientes de la conversación, razón por la cuál, podía ser aportada al proceso sin la necesidad de seguir las pautas establecidas en el artículo 9 y siguientes, de dicha ley, al inclusive ser aportada ante las autoridades judiciales por un ofendido indirecto al tratarse de un delito pluriofensivo, estimándose así que la prueba en mención, debía ser valorada de forma legítima en el proceso penal, contrario a lo sostenido por el Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia, posición que es compartida por esta Sala de Casación. Tal y como se aprecia en el segundo párrafo, del artículo 29 de la citada ley: “Cuando la persona que participa en una comunicación oral, escrita o de otro tipo, mediante la cual se comete un delito tipificado por la ley, la registre o la conserve, esta podrá ser presentada por la persona ofendida, ante las autoridades judiciales o policiales, para la investigación correspondiente.” Se tiene por establecido que el elemento de prueba que se encuentra en análisis, fue aportado a las autoridades judiciales bajo una condición de confidencialidad, tal y como se puede extraer de la propia sentencia de juicio, concretamente de la declaración del Oficial Randall González Morales, al indicarse que: “En el caso objeto de análisis, según la declaración rendida en el debate por el Oficial Randall González Morales, así como el Informe Policial Preliminar IP-067-EN-12 —f 2 a 7-, el presente caso se inicio por una información confidencial recibida en las Oficinas del Organismo de Investigación Judicial, que incluso se tramitó bajo el número interno 096-EN-12, recibiéndose a su vez, también de manera confidencial, un disco compacto con una grabación de video y audio. […]. En otro orden de ideas, es necesario acotar que la información confidencial no constituye una prueba, es una simple alerta sobre la posible comisión de un hecho delictivo, que debe ser analizada y corroborada a nivel policial, de tal manera lo que si constituye un elemento probatorio importante en la presente causa, es el video que se aportó junto con la citada comunicación, video que como corresponde en estos casos, fue revisado por los oficiales asignados al caso, a fin de establecer si existen bases para iniciar una investigación” (Cfr. f. 261 vto y 262, el subrayado es suplido). De esta manera, se puede visualizar que el aporte del video a las autoridades judiciales, es realizado por quien se puede establecer como un ofendido indirecto. Esta consideración se logra vincular al estar frente a una situación jurídica que implica la comisión de un delito de tipo pluriofensivo, cometido en contra de la Administración de Justicia. Esta particularidad reviste suma importancia, para la aplicación de la excepción establecida en el artículo 29 ibídem. La fiscalización y observancia del deber de cumplimiento en la función pública, atañe a toda la población en general. El deber de probidad, no solo dentro de la administración de justicia, sino en cualquier ámbito de la Administración Pública, conlleva un nivel de vigilancia y de protección por parte de la ciudadanía en general y no compete únicamente a las autoridades. En este sentido, toma primordial importancia encontrarse frente a un tipo penal que implica una lesión directa en contra de la Administración de Justicia, de tipo pluriofensivo, en el cual, la protección del servicio público y el deber de probidad de sus funcionarios, reviste un interés público, en donde la ciudadanía es llamada a ser un elemento fiscalizador adicional de las funciones estatales y que es una circunstancia que incluso es protegida por ley, al establecerse la confidencialidad de las denuncias realizadas por parte de la población. Aspecto de suma relevancia, como una herramienta más, en la lucha para atacar la corrupción en la Administración Pública. Se puede visualizar inclusive, el esfuerzo a nivel jurisdiccional que el país ha realizado para incentivar y proteger a los ciudadanos, para que estos procedan a cooperar y denunciar los actos que consideren irregulares en la administración pública en general y que violenten el deber de probidad intrínseco en el buen desarrollo de la función pública. Esfuerzo jurisdiccional que incluso se ve plasmado en la protección y confidencialidad que se le otorga al ciudadano en las denuncias y aportes que realice, tanto en sede administrativa como judicial. De esta forma, la legislación nacional, en su lucha contra la corrupción en la función pública, delimita dicha protección especial hacia la ciudadanía, estableciendo en el artículo 8 de la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública: “Protección de los derechos del denunciante de buena fe y confidencialidad de la información que origine la apertura del procedimiento administrativo. La Contraloría General de la República, la Administración y las auditorías internas de las instituciones y empresas públicas, guardarán confidencialidad respecto de la identidad de los ciudadanos que, de buena fe, presenten ante sus oficinas denuncias por actos de corrupción. […] Las personas que, de buena fe, denuncien los actos de corrupción descritos en el Código Penal, Ley No. 4573, y en esta Ley, serán protegidas por las autoridades policiales administrativas, conforme a los mecanismos legales previstos para tal efecto, a petición de parte.”. La particularidad del delito acá investigado, es que protege el deber de probidad en la función pública, al reprochar la eventual procuración de la impunidad de sujetos participes en una causa seguida por tráfico de estupefacientes (artículo 62 Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado y actividades conexas). Al ser un delito cometido en contra de la Administración de Justicia, y por ende en contra de la Administración Pública en general, reviste la particularidad de que la ciudadanía es el contralor de la función pública, al ser ofendidos indirectos en la protección de intereses colectivos y la lucha contra la corrupción. De manera tal, que tiene por establecida esta Sala que la excepción estipulada en el artículo 29 de la Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones, fue inaplicada por parte del ad quem. Ya que dicho articulado se refiere al derecho que ostenta la persona ofendida de proceder a grabar y aportar, aquellas comunicaciones por medio de las cuales se compruebe la comisión de un delito. Como requisito, la norma hace alusión a que tal aporte probatorio, debe llevarse a cabo por parte de un ofendido, circunstancia que dadas las características del bien protegido, es cumplido a cabalidad, al tratarse de un interés colectivo, y ser el video en cuestión, aportado a las autoridades judiciales por lo que se denominaría un ofendido indirecto. Aspecto que torna válida y eficaz la utilización de dicha prueba, aportada por un ofendido indirecto, dentro del presente proceso penal. Con respecto a los alcances de la excepción establecida en el ordinal 29 de la Ley de Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones, ya esta Sala ha indicado que: “El numeral 29 de la Ley de Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones establece en su párrafo segundo lo siguiente: “Cuando el destinatario de una comunicación, mediante la cual se está cometiendo un delito tipificado por la Ley, la registre o la conserve, ésta podrá ser presentada, ante las autoridades judiciales o policiales, para la investigación correspondiente”. Como puede apreciarse, se extrae que el “propietario”, por decirlo de alguna forma, de una comunicación es quien la recibe. Sobre él pesa la responsabilidad de presentarla como elemento para una investigación. Claro está que si la presenta, se convierte en un elemento probatorio que debe ser discutido y al cual debe dársele el valor que corresponda luego de apreciarlo conforme a las máximas del correcto entendimiento humano.”. (Sentencia número 48-2001, de 11:00 horas, del 12 de enero de 2001, el subrayado es suplido). En el presente proceso penal, es claro que el video fue grabado por uno de los intervinientes de la conversación, propiamente el sujeto que le solicita al imputado Díaz Montero realizar las acciones tendientes a desaparecer prueba existente en la causa penal Nº 09-200708-0431-PE. Por ende, este sujeto estaba en la facultad de captar la conversación de la cual era partícipe, tomando primordial relevancia, lo indicado en la presente resolución, en el tanto el aporte realizado de dicha captación de lo acontecido, es presentado ante las autoridades judiciales por una persona que reviste la condición de ofendida, estableciéndose que el tercero que llega a presentar dicho video ante las autoridades, es un ofendido indirecto de los hechos, al ser un delito pluriofensivo en contra de la Administración de Justicia, en el que cualquier ciudadano tiene la facultad y el derecho de denunciar hechos de esa índole, según se ha dicho. Es por las razones anteriormente expuestas, que debe acogerse el alegato recurrido por la representación fiscal. En consecuencia, se declara con lugar el recurso de casación interpuesto, al establecerse una inaplicación por parte del Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia de la excepción establecida en el artículo 29, párrafo segundo, de la Ley sobre Registro, Secuestro y Examen de Documentos Privados e Intervención de las Comunicaciones, número 7425 del 9 de agosto de 1994. En consecuencia, se deja sin efecto la resolución 253-2015, emitida por el Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal del Tercer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, al ser las 15:10 horas del 28 de abril de 2015. Se ordena el reenvío del presente asunto ante el Tribunal de Apelación, por haberse pronunciado por razones distintas a las recurridas, para que, con una nueva integración, se proceda a conocer sobre el reclamo planteado. Notifíquese.”