← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 01750-2018 Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal II Circuito Judicial de San José · Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal II Circuito Judicial de San José · 2018
OutcomeResultado
The Tribunal dismisses the appeal and upholds the conviction for inducing the tax administration into error and defrauding the Public Treasury.El Tribunal declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación y confirma la sentencia condenatoria por inducción a error a la administración tributaria y fraude a la Hacienda Pública.
SummaryResumen
The Criminal Appeals Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José upholds a conviction for inducing the tax administration into error and defrauding the Public Treasury. The decision addresses multiple complaints raised by the appellants, challenging the findings of proven facts, the criminality of the conduct, the statute of limitations, and the viability of co-perpetration based on functional control of the act. The tribunal dismisses the complaints after a thorough scrutiny of the lower court's judgment, first reviewing whether the factual determination is correct and arises from a proper evidentiary assessment and complete reasoning. It then examines the legal consequences, including the nature of the offense, prescription periods, and applicable doctrinal categories, concluding that the conduct is not atypical, not time-barred, and admits co-perpetration. The ruling reaffirms the validity of the administrative and judicial procedure and establishes criteria on diffuse conventionality control, the retroactivity of the more favorable criminal law, and the aggregation of amounts in tax offenses committed by an economic interest group.El Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal del II Circuito Judicial de San José confirma una sentencia condenatoria por inducción a error a la administración tributaria y fraude a la Hacienda Pública. La resolución analiza múltiples quejas de los recurrentes: impugnan la fijación de hechos probados, la tipicidad de la conducta, la prescripción de la acción penal y la viabilidad de la coautoría por dominio funcional del hecho. El tribunal declara sin lugar las quejas tras un escrutinio exhaustivo de la sentencia del a quo, revisando primero si la determinación fáctica es correcta y si surge de una valoración probatoria adecuada y una motivación completa. Luego examina las consecuencias jurídicas, incluyendo la naturaleza del ilícito, los plazos de prescripción y las categorías dogmáticas aplicables, concluyendo que la conducta no es atípica, no está prescrita y admite la coautoría. La decisión reafirma la validez del procedimiento administrativo y judicial seguido y sienta criterios sobre el control de convencionalidad difuso, la retroactividad de la ley penal más beneficiosa y la sumatoriedad de montos en delitos tributarios cometidos por un grupo de interés económico.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In such cases, this would essentially entail modifying the decision of the lower court, either because the conduct becomes atypical, because it is time-barred, or because co-perpetration is not applicable (contrary assumptions on which this judgment rests), thus making it necessary, first, to determine the content of the criminal offense charged or potentially applicable, after the various normative changes over time; to establish the statute of limitations for the criminal action; and to determine the legal nature of the attributed illicit act, in order to analyze the feasibility of co-perpetration by functional control of the act...En tales supuestos, ello implicaría modificar, esencialmente, lo decidido por el a quo, sea porque la conducta devenga atípica, porque esté prescrita o porque no quepa la coautoría (supuestos contrarios sobre los que se asienta esta sentencia), lo que hace ver la necesidad de, en primer término, fijar el contenido del tipo penal acusado o eventualmente aplicable, luego de las diferentes transformaciones normativas sucedidas en el tiempo; establecer el plazo de prescripción de la acción penal y determinar la naturaleza jurídica del ilícito atribuido, para analizar la viabilidad de que quepa la coautoría por dominio funcional del hecho...
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Estas quejas se abordarán en conjunto, dada su conexidad y se declararán sin lugar."
"These complaints will be addressed jointly, given their connection, and will be dismissed."
Considerando III (parcial)
"Estas quejas se abordarán en conjunto, dada su conexidad y se declararán sin lugar."
Considerando III (parcial)
"... fijar el contenido del tipo penal acusado o eventualmente aplicable, luego de las diferentes transformaciones normativas sucedidas en el tiempo; establecer el plazo de prescripción de la acción penal y determinar la naturaleza jurídica del ilícito atribuido, para analizar la viabilidad de que quepa la coautoría por dominio funcional del hecho..."
"... determine the content of the charged or potentially applicable criminal offense, after the various normative changes over time; establish the statute of limitations for the criminal action; and determine the legal nature of the attributed illicit act, in order to analyze the feasibility of co-perpetration by functional control of the act..."
Considerando III
"... fijar el contenido del tipo penal acusado o eventualmente aplicable, luego de las diferentes transformaciones normativas sucedidas en el tiempo; establecer el plazo de prescripción de la acción penal y determinar la naturaleza jurídica del ilícito atribuido, para analizar la viabilidad de que quepa la coautoría por dominio funcional del hecho..."
Considerando III
Full documentDocumento completo
III.- [...] These complaints will be addressed jointly, given their connection, and will be declared without merit. The arguments that have been summarized and combined encompass several distinct but related legal issues. In principle and in theory, the exercise of scrutinizing a judicial ruling involves, first, reviewing whether the determination of the proven facts (hechos probados) is correct, that is, whether they arise both from a proper assessment of the evidence (valoración probatoria) and from a complete and solid reasoning of the decision. Only afterwards would the legal consequences (of various types) that those events may produce be analyzed. However, that order of analysis or approach may vary if issues prior to the ruling (pertaining to the trial or phases before it) are alleged and if, [...] as happens in this case, theoretical-abstract complaints are raised that—regardless of whether the factual determination and the legal basis are correct or not—imply that if the appellants are correct in them, this would affect what was decided. In such scenarios, this would essentially entail modifying what was decided by the a quo, either because the conduct becomes atypical, because it is time-barred, or because co-perpetration (coautoría) does not apply (contrary assumptions on which this ruling is based), which makes it necessary, first of all, to determine the content of the charged or potentially applicable criminal offense, after the various regulatory transformations that have occurred over time; to establish the statute of limitations (prescripción) period for the criminal action (acción penal) and determine the legal nature of the attributed offense, in order to analyze the feasibility of co-perpetration (coautoría) by functional control of the act (dominio funcional del hecho)—since it is known that, as the appellants correctly state in the abstract, not all categories of crimes admit it—; to verify that the administrative and judicial procedure followed is valid, and only if there is a possibility that the arguments put forth here are rejected, then proceed to analyze the rest of the complaints, directed at other procedural topics." **III.-** [...] **These complaints will be addressed jointly, given their connection, and will be dismissed.** The arguments that have been summarized and combined cover several distinct but related legal issues.
In principle and in theory, the exercise of scrutinizing a judicial decision involves, first, reviewing whether the determination of proven facts is correct; that is, whether they arise from both an adequate assessment of evidence and a complete and solid reasoning for the decision. Only afterward would the legal consequences (of various types) that those events may produce be analyzed. However, that order of analysis or approach may vary if issues prior to the judgment are alleged (pertaining to the trial itself or to phases before it) and if, as occurs in this case, abstract theoretical complaints are raised which—regardless of whether the factual determination and the reasoning are correct or not—imply that, should the appellants be correct on those points, the decision would be affected. In such cases, this would essentially mean modifying what was decided by the *a quo*, whether because the conduct becomes atypical, because it is time-barred (prescrita), or because co-perpetration (coautoría) is not applicable (contrary assumptions on which this judgment is based), which demonstrates the need to, firstly, determine the content of the charged or potentially applicable criminal offense, following the various regulatory transformations that have occurred over time; to establish the statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción) for the criminal action and determine the legal nature of the attributed unlawful act, in order to analyze the viability of co-perpetration by functional control over the act (coautoría por dominio funcional del hecho) being applicable—since it is well known, as the appellants rightly argue in the abstract, that not all categories of crimes permit it—; to verify that the administrative and judicial procedure followed is valid, and only if the arguments raised here are rejected, to proceed to the analysis of the remaining complaints, directed at other procedural topics.
"III.- [...] Estas quejas se abordar án en conjunto, dada su conexidad y se declararán sin lugar. Los argumentos que se han resumido y conjuntado recogen varios temas jurídicos, distintos pero afines. En principio y en teor ía, el ejercicio de escrutinio de una sentencia judicial pasa, primero, por revisar si la fijaci ón de los hechos probados es correcta, es decir, si estos surgen tanto de una adecuada valoración probatoria como de una completa y sólida motivación de la decisión. Solo después se analizarían las consecuencias jurídicas (de diverso tipo) que esos eventos pueden producir. No obstante, ese orden en el análisis o abordaje puede variar si se alegan temas anteriores a la sentencia (propios del juicio o de fases previas a este) y si, [...] como sucede en este caso, se plantean quejas teórico-abstractas que -al margen de que la determinación fáctica y la fundamentación sea o no correcta- impliquen que si los recurrentes tienen razón en ellos, se incida en lo resuelto. En tales supuestos, ello implicaría modificar, esencialmente, lo decidido por el a quo , sea porque la conducta devenga atípica, porque est é prescrita o porque no quepa la coautor ía (supuestos contrarios sobre los que se asienta esta sentencia), lo que hace ver la necesidad de, en primer término, fijar el contenido del tipo penal acusado o eventualmente aplicable, luego de las diferentes transformaciones normativas sucedidas en el tiempo; establecer el plazo de prescripci ón de la acción penal y determinar la naturaleza jurídica del ilícito atribuido, para analizar la viabilidad de que quepa la coauto ría por dominio funcional del hecho -pues es sabido que, como bien lo exponen los recurrentes en forma abstracta, no todas las categorías de delitos la admiten-; verificar que el procedimiento, administrativo y judicial, seguido sea válido y solo ante la posibilidad de que los argumentos aquí esgrimidos sean rechazados, proceder al análisis del resto de las quejas, dirigidas a otros tópicos procesales."
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.