Acquittal for lack of criminality in trade of wild palmitoAbsolución por falta de tipicidad en comercio de palmito silvestre

041-F-98 CRIMINAL CASSATION COURT. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at eleven hours forty minutes on the twenty-third of January of nineteen ninety-eight.

CASSATION APPEAL filed in the present case against [Nombre1], of legal age, married, engineer, identity card number CED1, for the crime of VIOLATION OF THE WILDLIFE LAW [Nombre2], to the detriment of THE WILDLIFE LAW [Nombre2]. The Judges María de los Angeles Londoño Rodríguez, Alejandro López Mc Adam, and Fernando Cruz Castro participate in the decision of the appeal. Appearing in cassation were Attorney [Nombre1] and the Representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

WHEREAS:

I.That by means of a judgment issued at sixteen hours on the twenty-second of September of nineteen ninety-seven, the Criminal Court of Cartago resolved: "In accordance with articles 36, 39, and 41 of the Political Constitution, sections 1, 11, 30, 45, 50, 59, 69 -71 to 74- of the Penal Code, 14, 52, and 92 of Law 7317 on wildlife conservation, and sections 392 to 399 and 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [Nombre1] is declared to be the RESPONSIBLE PERPETRATOR OF the crime of VIOLATION OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LAW [Nombre2] that was being attributed against him and to the detriment of NATURAL RESOURCES, and as such a penalty of a FINE OF THIRTY THOUSAND COLONES is imposed upon him, which must be deposited in the current account as indicated by Law within the following fifteen days of the judgment becoming final. The costs of this proceeding are the responsibility of the accused. For the reading of the judgment in its entirety, sixteen hours on the twenty-second day of September of nineteen ninety-seven is set. NOTIFY BY READING. ATTORNEY [Nombre2], JUDGE." (Sic).

II. That against the foregoing pronouncement, Attorney [Nombre1] filed a Cassation Appeal

III.That having verified the respective deliberation in accordance with the provisions of article 481 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court considered the issues raised in the Appeal.

IV. That the pertinent legal prescriptions have been observed in the proceedings

DRAFTED by Judge [Nombre3]; and,

CONSIDERING:

Attorney [Nombre1], defender of the accused [Nombre1], files a Cassation Appeal on the merits. As the first ground, he alleges erroneous application of section 92 of the Wildlife Conservation Law and of Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. He considers that the proven facts are atypical, since not all the elements of the offense cited are present. He points out that the wild palmito, the item confiscated from the accused, is not in danger of extinction, a requirement of the criminal statute applied. THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT. Article 92 of Law number 7317 contemplates as punishable conduct the act of trading, negotiating, or trafficking in wild flora, its products, or by-products, without the respective permit from the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre of the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, when dealing with plants declared in danger of extinction by the Executive Branch or by International Conventions. Such a declaration is also contemplated in articles 14, 18, and 25 of the same law, which protect the conservation of species in danger of extinction. According to a report from said Ministry, the wild palmito is not in danger of extinction (page 19), so no declaration exists to that effect. The regulation that the judgment indicates as integral to what is indicated in article 92 of Law 7317 (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) does not include the wild palmito or white palmito as an endangered species. Appendices I and II, which refer to the classification of CITES species mentioned in the ruling, are not applicable to this case, since Appendix II refers to species that are not currently in danger of extinction, and the criminal statute applied requires that they be so, and the third appendix speaks of species under a special regime but not threatened. As an element of the offense is missing in the species, namely that the item must have been declared in danger of extinction, the alleged crime is not constituted. Nor could the facts be adapted to the figure contemplated in article 90 of the same law, since it was not proven that the palmito was extracted in official protection areas or in duly authorized private areas, as the indicated norm establishes, and as regulated by articles 82 to 87 of the law. Since it was not proven that the palmito was for export, articles ninety-one and ninety-two of the repeatedly cited law would also not be applicable. Regarding the contraventions established in the law, their analysis is not entered into, since if the conduct of the accused were to fit a contravention, it would already be prescribed given the date of commission of the alleged facts. For the foregoing reasons, and as the fact held as proven does not constitute a crime, the judgment is overturned, and Mr. [Nombre1] is acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for the violation of the Wildlife Conservation Law that has been attributed to him to the detriment of Natural Resources. In consideration of the ruling, analysis of the other ground of the appeal is omitted.

THEREFORE:

The Cassation Appeal is granted. The judgment is overturned, and Mr. [Nombre1] is acquitted of the Violation of the Wildlife Conservation Law to the detriment of Natural Resources. In light of the ruling, any pronouncement regarding the second ground of the appeal is omitted. Notify. Exp. 97-398-339-PE-3.

(CASE against [Nombre1], for the crime of VIOLATION OF THE WILDLIFE LAW [Nombre2], to the detriment of NATURAL RESOURCES).

Attorney María de los Angeles Londoño Rodríguez Dr. Fernando Cruz Castro Attorney Alejandro López Mc Adam Having verified the respective deliberation in accordance with the provisions of Article 481 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has considered the issues raised in the Appeal.

IV. That the pertinent legal prescriptions have been observed in the proceedings

DRAFTED by Judge [Nombre3]; and, **CONSIDERING:** Mr. [Nombre1], defense counsel for the accused [Nombre1], files a substantive appeal on cassation (Recurso de Casación por el fondo). As a first ground, he alleges erroneous application of Article 92 of the Wildlife Conservation Law and Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. He considers that the proven facts are atypical, since not all the elements of the offense cited are present. He points out that the palmito (heart of palm), the item seized from the accused, is not in danger of extinction, a requirement of the criminal type applied. THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT. Article 92 of Law No. 7317 contemplates as punishable conduct the trade, negotiation, or trafficking of wild flora, its products or by-products, without the respective permit from the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre of the Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, *when dealing with plants declared in danger of extinction by the Executive Branch or by International Conventions*. Such a declaration is also contemplated in Articles 14, 18, and 25 of the same law, which protect the conservation of species in danger of extinction. According to a report from the said Ministry, the wild palmito is not in danger of extinction (folio 19), so there is no declaration to that effect. The regulation that the judgment indicates as integrating what is stated in Article 92 of Law 7317, (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), does not include the wild palmito or white palmito as a species in danger of extinction. Appendices I and II, which refer to the classification of CITES species mentioned by the ruling, are not applicable to this case, since Appendix II refers to species that are not currently in danger of extinction, and the criminal type applied requires that they be so, and the third appendix speaks of species under a special regime, but not threatened. Since an element of the criminal type is missing, namely that the item has been declared in danger of extinction, the charged offense is not configured. Nor could the act be adjusted to the figure contemplated in Article 90 of the same law, since it was not proven that the palmito was extracted in official protection areas or in duly authorized private areas, as the cited norm establishes, and Articles 82 to 87 of the law regulate. As it was not proven that the palmito was for export, Articles ninety-one and ninety-two of the repeatedly cited law would also not be applicable. Regarding the contraventions established in the law, their analysis is not entered into, since if the conduct of the accused were to fit a contravention, it would already be prescribed given the date of commission of the charged acts. For the reasons indicated, and as the fact held as proven does not constitute a crime, the judgment is overturned on cassation (se casa la sentencia) and Mr. [Nombre1] is acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for the violation of the Wildlife Conservation Law that has been attributed to him to the detriment of Natural Resources. In consideration of the decision, the analysis of the other ground of the appeal is omitted.

**POR TANTO:** The Appeal on Cassation is granted. The judgment is overturned on cassation and Mr. [Nombre1] is acquitted of Violation of the Wildlife Conservation Law to the detriment of Natural Resources. In view of the decision, a ruling on the second ground of the appeal is omitted. Notify.

(CASE against [Nombre1], for the crime of VIOLATION OF WILDLIFE LAW [Nombre2], to the detriment of NATURAL RESOURCES).

**Licda. María de los Angeles Londoño Rodríguez** **Dr. Fernando Cruz Castro** **Lic. Alejandro López Mc Adam** 041-F-98 TRIBUNAL DE CASACION PENAL. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at eleven hours forty minutes on the twenty-third of January of nineteen ninety-eight.

CASSATION APPEAL (RECURSO DE CASACION) filed in the present case against [Nombre1], of legal age, married, engineer, identity card number CED1, for the crime of VIOLATION OF THE WILDLIFE LAW (INFRACCION LEY VIDA [Nombre2]), to the detriment of THE WILDLIFE LAW (LEY DE LA VIDA [Nombre2]). Judges María de los Angeles Londoño Rodríguez, Alejandro López Mc Adam, and Fernando Cruz Castro participate in the decision of the appeal. Licenciado [Nombre1] and the Representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office appeared in cassation.

RESULTANDO:

I.That by means of a judgment issued at sixteen hours on the twenty-second of September of nineteen ninety-seven, the Criminal Court of Cartago resolved: "In accordance with Articles 36, 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution, numerals 1, 11, 30, 45, 50, 59, 69 -71 to 74- of the Penal Code, 14, 52 and 92 of Law 7317 on wildlife conservation and numerals 392 to 399 and 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [Nombre1] is declared to be the AUTHOR RESPONSIBLE FOR the crime of VIOLATION OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LAW (INFRACCION A LA LEY DE CONSEVACION DE VIDA [Nombre2]) that had been attributed against him and to the detriment of NATURAL RESOURCES (LOS RECURSOS NATURALES), and as such a penalty is imposed of a FINE OF THIRTY THOUSAND COLONES (MULTA DE TREINTA MIL COLONES) which must be deposited in the current account indicated by the Law within the following fifteen days from the finality of the ruling. The costs of this process are the responsibility of the accused. For the reading of the judgment in its entirety the time of sixteen hours on the day of the twenty-second of September of nineteen ninety-seven is set. NOTIFY BY MEANS OF READING. LICDO. [Nombre2], JUDGE." (Sic).

II. That against the above pronouncement, Licenciado [Nombre1] filed a Cassation Appeal

III.

That the respective deliberation having been verified in accordance with the provisions of article 481 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court considered the questions raised in the Appeal.

IV. That in the proceedings the pertinent legal requirements have been observed

DRAFTED by Judge [Nombre3]; and,

CONSIDERANDO:

Licenciado [Nombre1], defense counsel for the accused [Nombre1], files a Cassation Appeal on the merits. As a first ground, he alleges an erroneous application of numeral 92 of the Wildlife Conservation Law and of Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. He considers that the proven facts are atypical, since not all of the requirements of the elements of the cited offense are present. He points out that the palmito, the item seized from the accused, is not in danger of extinction, a requirement of the criminal type applied. THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT. Article 92 of Law number 7317 contemplates as punishable conduct trading, negotiating, or trafficking in wild flora, with its products or by-products, without the respective permit from the General Directorate of Wildlife, of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, when it concerns plants declared in danger of extinction by the Executive Branch or by International Conventions. Such declaration is also contemplated in articles 14, 18, and 25 of the same law, which protect the conservation of endangered species. According to a report from said Ministry, the wild palmito is not in danger of extinction (folio 19), so there is no declaration to that effect. The regulations that the judgment points out as integrating what is indicated in article 92 of Law 7317, (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), do not include the wild palmito or white palmito as a species in danger of extinction. Appendices I and II, which refer to the classification of CITES species that the ruling mentions, are not applicable to this case, since Appendix II refers to species that are not currently in danger of extinction, and the criminal type applied requires that they be, and the third appendix speaks of species under a special regime, but not threatened. Since an element of the type is missing in the species, namely that the item has been declared in danger of extinction, the charged offense is not constituted. Nor could the fact be adjusted to the figure contemplated in article 90 of the same law, since it was not proven that the palmito was extracted in official protection areas or in duly authorized private areas, as the indicated rule establishes, and as articles 82 to 87 of the law regulate. Since it was not proven that the palmito was for export, articles ninety-one and ninety-two of the repeatedly cited law would also not be applicable. As for the contraventions established in the law, their analysis is not entered into, since if the accused's conduct were to fit a contravention, it would already be prescribed given the date of commission of the charged acts. Due to the foregoing, and since the fact held as proven does not constitute a crime, the judgment is quashed and Mr. [Nombre1] is acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for the violation of the Wildlife Conservation Law that has been attributed to him to the detriment of Natural Resources. In consideration of what is resolved, analysis of the other ground of the appeal is omitted.

POR TANTO:

The Cassation Appeal is declared with merit. The judgment is quashed and Mr. [Nombre1] is acquitted of Violation of the Wildlife Conservation Law to the detriment of Natural Resources. In view of what is resolved, a pronouncement on the second ground of the appeal is omitted. Notify. Exp. 97-398-339-PE-3.

(CAUSE against [Nombre1], for the crime of VIOLATION WILDLIFE LAW [Nombre2], to the detriment of NATURAL RESOURCES).

Licda. María de los Angeles Londoño Rodríguez Dr. Fernando Castro Castro Lic. Alejandro López Mc Adam

041-F-98 TRIBUNAL DE CASACION PENAL. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, a las once horas cuarenta minutos del veintitrés de enero de mil novecientos noventa y ocho.

RECURSO DE CASACION interpuesto en la presente causa seguida contra [Nombre1], mayor, casado, ingeniero, cédula de identidad número CED1, por el delito de INFRACCION LEY VIDA [Nombre2], en perjuicio de LEY DE LA VIDA [Nombre2]. Intervienen en la decisión del recurso los Jueces María de los Angeles Londoño Rodríguez, Alejandro López Mc Adam y Fernando Cruz Castro. Se apersonaron en casación el Licenciado [Nombre1] y el Representante del Ministerio Público.

RESULTANDO:

I.Que mediante sentencia dictada a las dieciséis horas del veintidós de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y siete, el Juzgado Penal de Cartago, resolvió: "De conformidad con los artículos 36, 39 y 41 de la Constitución Política, numerales 1, 11, 30, 45, 50, 59, 69 -71 a 74- del Código Penal, 14, 52 y 92 de la Ley 7317 de conservación de vida silvestre y numerales 392 a 399 y 544 del Código de Procedimientos Penales, se declara a [Nombre1] AUTOR RESPONSABLE POR EL delito de INFRACCION A LA LEY DE CONSEVACION DE VIDA [Nombre2] que se le venía atribuyendo en su contra y en perjuicio de LOS RECURSOS NATURALES, y como tal se les imponde una pena de MULTA DE TREINTA MIL COLONES los que deberán depositar en la cuenta corriente que así lo indique la Ley dentro de los siguientes quince días a la firmeza del fallo. Son las costas de este proceso a cargo del imputado. Para la lectura de la sentencia en su forma integra se fijan las dieciséis horas del día veintidós de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y siete. NOTIFIQUESE MEDIANTE LECTURA. LICDO. [Nombre2], JUEZ." (Sic).

II. Que contra el anterior pronunciamiento, el Licenciado [Nombre1] interpuso Recurso de Casación

III.Que verificada la deliberación respectiva de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 481 del Código de Procedimientos Penales, el Tribunal se planteó las cuestiones formuladas en el Recurso.

IV. Que en los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones legales pertinentes

REDACTA la Jueza [Nombre3]; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

El Licenciado [Nombre1], defensor del imputado [Nombre1], interpone Recurso de Casación por el fondo. Como primer motivo alega errónea aplicación del numeral 92 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y del Apéndice II de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora silvestre. Considera que los hechos acreditados resultan atípicos, puesto que no todos los requisitos de tipicidad de la infracción citada se encuentran presentes. Señala que el palmito, bien decomisado al imputado, no se encuentra en peligro de extinción, requisito del tipo penal aplicado. LLEVA RAZON EL RECURRENTE. El artículo 92 de la Ley número 7317 contempla como conducta sancionable el comerciar, negociar o traficar con la flora silvestre, con sus productos o subproductos, sin el respectivo permiso de la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, del Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas, cuando se trate de plantas declaradas en peligro de extinción por el Poder Ejecutivo o por Convenciones Internacionales. Tal declaratoria se contempla también en los artículos 14, 18 y 25 de la misma ley, que protegen la conservación de las especies en vías de extinción. Según informe del Ministerio dicho, el palmito silvestre no se encuentra en peligro de extinción (folio 19), por lo que no existe declaratoria en tal sentido. La normativa que la sentencia señala como integradora de lo indicado en el artículo 92 de la Ley 7317, (Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestre), no incluye el palmito silvestre o palmito blanco como especie en peligro de extinción. Los apéndices I y II que se refiere a clasificación de las especies CITES que el fallo menciona no son aplicables a este caso, puesto que el inciso II se refiere a las especies que en la actualidad no se encuentran en peligro de extinción, y el tipo penal aplicado requiere que sí lo estén, y el apéndice tercero habla de especies bajo un régimen especial, pero no amenazadas. Al faltar en la especie un elemento del tipo, cual es que el bien haya sido declarado en peligro de extinción, no se configura el delito acusado. Tampoco podría adecuarse el hecho a la figura contemplada en el artículo 90 de la misma ley, pues no se acreditó que el palmito haya sido extraído en áreas oficiales de protección o en las áreas privadas debidamente autorizadas, como la norma señalada establece, y regulan los artículos 82 a 87 de la ley. Como no se probó que el palmito fuera para la exportación, tampoco serían de aplicación los artículos noventa y uno ni noventa y dos de la ley de repetida cita. En cuanto a las contravenciones establecidas en la ley, no se entra a su análisis, puesto que de adecuarse la conducta del imputado a una contravención, ya estaría prescrita dada la fecha de comisión de los hechos acusados. Por lo indicado, y al no ser el hecho tenido por demostrado configurativo de delito, se casa la sentencia y se absuelve de toda pena y responsabilidad al señor [Nombre1] por la infracción a la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre que se le ha venido atribuyendo en perjuicio de los Recurso Naturales. En consideración a lo resuelto se omite analizar el otro motivo del recurso.

POR TANTO:

Se declara con lugar el Recurso de Casación. Se casa la sentencia y se absuelve al señor [Nombre1] por Infracción a la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre en perjuicio de los Recursos Naturales. En atención a lo resuelto se omite pronunciamiento en cuanto al segundo motivo del recurso. Notifíquese. Exp. 97-398-339-PE-3.

(CAUSA contra [Nombre1], por el delito de INFRACCION LEY VIDA [Nombre2], en perjuicio de LOS RECURSOS NATURALES).

Licda. María de los Angeles Londoño Rodríguez Dr. Fernando Cruz Castro Lic. Alejandro López Mc Adam