← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00042-1993 Sala Tercera de la Corte · Sala Tercera de la Corte · 1993
OutcomeResultado
The Third Chamber granted the appeals, acquitted the defendant, and annulled the civil judgment, holding that the conduct was not criminal as it did not harm the protected legal interest.La Sala Tercera declaró con lugar los recursos de casación, absolvió al imputado y anuló la condena civil por considerar que la conducta era atípica al no afectarse el bien jurídico protegido.
SummaryResumen
The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice overturned a conviction against a concessionaire who built in the restricted zone of Playa Tamarindo without timely municipal permits. The Chamber found that the defendant was not a squatter but a lawful concessionaire, and the administrative irregularity was cured when the construction plans were subsequently approved, per Article 31 of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law. The court stressed that the legal interest protected by Articles 12, 61, 62, and 63 of that law is the natural environment of the maritime terrestrial zone, not the mere administrative permit process. Since that legal interest was not harmed, the facts did not fit any criminal offense. The Chamber granted the appeals, acquitted the defendant of all punishment and liability, and annulled the ancillary civil judgment.La Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia anuló una sentencia condenatoria contra un concesionario que construyó en la zona restringida de Playa Tamarindo sin haber obtenido a tiempo los permisos municipales. La Sala determinó que el imputado no era un usurpador, sino un concesionario autorizado para ocupar el terreno, y que la irregularidad administrativa quedó subsanada al obtener posteriormente la aprobación de los planos, de conformidad con el artículo 31 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. El tribunal enfatizó que el bien jurídico protegido por los artículos 12, 61, 62 y 63 de esa ley es el entorno natural de la zona marítimo terrestre, no el mero trámite administrativo de obtención de permisos. Al no haberse afectado dicho bien jurídico, los hechos no encuadraban en ningún tipo penal. La Sala declaró con lugar los recursos de casación, absolvió al imputado de toda pena y responsabilidad, y anuló la condena civil accesoria.
Key excerptExtracto clave
From the foregoing it follows, without a doubt, that the defendant was authorized to occupy the land in question, in accordance with the purposes set forth in the law. He is not a squatter, but a person who held the lot on the basis of a concession. Therefore, the only irregularity attributed to him is not having obtained the respective building permits on time. However, apart from being a purely administrative matter, the judgment itself indicates that the defendant was granted a period to regularize his situation, within which he carried out the corresponding procedures, obtaining authorization to build from the respective institutions. In other words, the trial court held that the initial irregularity was cured, with the consent of the Municipality, thus complying with Article 31 of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law regarding the approval of plans. It is worth adding that the legal interest protected by the interplay of Articles 12, 61, 62, and 63 of said law refers not to the administrative aspect of granting a building permit, but rather to the protection of the natural environment of the maritime terrestrial zone. Therefore, since the defendant already had a concession over that particular land, the legal interest was not affected in any way. In this case, then, it is clear that the proven facts do not fit any criminal provision.De lo expuesto se desprende, sin lugar a dudas, que el imputado estaba autorizado para ocupar el terreno que interesa, conforme a los fines que señala la ley. No se trata de un usurpador, sino de una persona que poseía el lote con fundamento en una concesión. Por ello, la única irregularidad que se le atribuye es la de no haber obtenido a tiempo los permisos respectivos para construir. Sin embargo, aparte de tratarse de un aspecto puramente administrativo, la propia sentencia señala que al imputado se le otorgó un término para que normalizara su situación, plazo dentro del cual llevó a cabo las gestiones correspondientes, logrando que las instituciones respectivas le concedieran la autorización para construir. En otras palabras, el juzgador tuvo por cierto que la irregularidad inicial fue subsanada, con la anuencia de la Municipalidad, cumpliéndose de esa manera lo dispuesto por el artículo 31 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, respecto a la aprobación de los planos. Vale la pena agregar que el bien jurídico tutelado por la relación de los artículos 12, 61, 62 y 63 de la citada ley, no se refiere al aspecto administrativo del otorgamiento de un permiso para construir, sino que se refiere más bien a la protección del entorno natural de la zona marítimo terrestre. Por ende, si ya el imputado tenía una concesión sobre ese terreno en particular, el bien jurídico no se ha visto afectado en forma alguna. En este caso, pues, resulta evidente que los hechos que se tuvieron por probados no encuadran en ninguna norma punitiva.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Vale la pena agregar que el bien jurídico tutelado por la relación de los artículos 12, 61, 62 y 63 de la citada ley, no se refiere al aspecto administrativo del otorgamiento de un permiso para construir, sino que se refiere más bien a la protección del entorno natural de la zona marítimo terrestre."
"It is worth adding that the legal interest protected by the interplay of Articles 12, 61, 62, and 63 of said law refers not to the administrative aspect of granting a building permit, but rather to the protection of the natural environment of the maritime terrestrial zone."
Considerando II
"Vale la pena agregar que el bien jurídico tutelado por la relación de los artículos 12, 61, 62 y 63 de la citada ley, no se refiere al aspecto administrativo del otorgamiento de un permiso para construir, sino que se refiere más bien a la protección del entorno natural de la zona marítimo terrestre."
Considerando II
"En otras palabras, el juzgador tuvo por cierto que la irregularidad inicial fue subsanada, con la anuencia de la Municipalidad, cumpliéndose de esa manera lo dispuesto por el artículo 31 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, respecto a la aprobación de los planos."
"In other words, the trial court held that the initial irregularity was cured, with the consent of the Municipality, thus complying with Article 31 of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law regarding the approval of plans."
Considerando II
"En otras palabras, el juzgador tuvo por cierto que la irregularidad inicial fue subsanada, con la anuencia de la Municipalidad, cumpliéndose de esa manera lo dispuesto por el artículo 31 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, respecto a la aprobación de los planos."
Considerando II
Full documentDocumento completo
Resolución 042-F-93 THIRD CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the twenty-second of January of nineteen ninety-three.- Cassation appeal (recurso de casación) filed in this case against Nombre01, of legal age, merchant, resident of Playa Tamarindo, identity card No. CED01 for the crime of ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE MARITIME TERRESTRIAL ZONE (CONSTRUCCION ILEGAL EN LA ZONA MARITIMO TERRESTRE), committed to the detriment of THE STATE. Participating in the decision on the appeal are the Magistrates Daniel González Alvarez, Presiding Judge, Jesús Alberto Ramírez Quirós, Mario Alberto Houed Vega, Alfonso Chaves Ramírez, and Rodrigo Castro Monge. The parties are Licenciado Manuel Angel Rojas Días, defense attorney for the accused, and Licenciado Jorge Umaña Rodríguez as representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office.-
WHEREAS:
1.- That by means of a judgment issued at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the twenty-eighth of July of nineteen ninety-two, the Criminal Trial Court of Santa Cruz, resolved: "POR TANTO: In accordance with the foregoing and articles one, four, eleven, eighteen, twenty-nine, thirty, forty-five, fifty, fifty-three through fifty-six, fifty-nine and sixty, seventy-one, seventy-nine, of the Penal Code and one, three hundred ninety, three hundred ninety-two, three hundred ninety-three, three hundred ninety-nine, four hundred twenty-one and five hundred twelve, and five hundred forty-two of the Code of Criminal Procedure, twelve, thirteen, fifty-three subsection c) sixty-two and sixty-five of the Ley sobre la zona Marítimo Terrestre IT IS HEREBY RULED: The accused Nombre01 is declared the responsible perpetrator of VIOLATION OF THE LEY SOBRE LA ZONA MARITIMO TERRESTRE (INFRACCION A LA LEY SOBRE LA ZONA MARITIMO TERRESTRE) and for such criminality he is sentenced to a penalty of five months of imprisonment which, upon crediting of the pre-trial detention served, shall be discounted at the site indicated by the respective prison regulations. The loss of the concession enjoyed by Mr. Nombre01 and of any buildings he may have on the respective parcel is ordered, which shall be communicated upon the finality of this judgment to the Municipality of Santa Cruz and to the General Registry of Concessions (Registro General de Concesiones) of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo). There is no ground to order the demolition of the structure. The convict is granted the benefit of conditional execution of the sentence for a probationary period of three years, he being warned of the reasons that will give rise to the revocation of said grace. The costs of the proceedings are borne by the defendant. ANDRES PEREZ GONZALEZ, JUDGE. JULIA MADRIGAL J. ASSISTANT SECRETARY." (Sic.).- 2.- That against the foregoing ruling the accused Nombre01 filed a cassation appeal (recurso de casación). The appellant alleges a violation of articles 12, 13, 53, subsection c), 62 and 65 of the Ley Sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre and a failure to apply numerals 1, 26, 30 and 31 of the Penal Code. He requests that the judgment be overturned.- 3.- That having conducted the respective deliberation in accordance with the provisions of article 481 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chamber proceeded to hear the appeal.- 4.- That the pertinent legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings.- DRAFTED BY MAGISTRATE RAMIREZ; AND,
WHEREAS:
I.- The Chamber has considered the various aspects of the appeal on procedural grounds (recurso por la forma) filed by the defendant Nombre01, authenticated by Lic. Alvaro López Araya, (folios 191 to 197) and, for reasons of procedural economy, has decided to directly address the appeals on substantive grounds (recursos por el fondo) for violation of substantive norms.- II.- Appeals on the merits (recursos por el fondo) filed by the accused Nombre01.- In the first of these challenges (folios 185 to 190), which appears authenticated by Lic. José Francisco Hernández Retana, a violation of articles 12, 13, 53, subsection c), 62 and 65 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre and a failure to apply numerals 1, 26, 30 and 31 of the Penal Code is alleged, as the appellant considers -among other aspects- that the conduct attributed to him is atypical and devoid of criminal intent (dolo), as it does not fall within any of the norms that our positive law punishes as a crime (delito). In the second challenge, authenticated by Lic. Alvaro López Araya, the appellant alleges the violation of the same articles just cited, as he considers -among other things- that "at most, what occurred was a late approval of the plans, which does not constitute any typical figure constituting a crime (delito)." The appellant is correct in both arguments. In the statement of proven facts of the judgment, it is clearly established -among other aspects- that the accused Nombre01 is the "possessor and concessionaire" of a parcel, located in the restricted zone of Playa Tamarindo, in Santa Cruz de Guanacaste, land on which he began, in the year nineteen eighty-nine, the construction of a two-story building, "without having the permission of the Municipality of Santa Cruz to do so." Furthermore, it was held as true that on the first of December of that same year, the Municipal Administrative Council of said locality agreed to grant the accused Nombre01 one month "to normalize and process the corresponding permits" and that the plans were indeed approved on the eighth of March of nineteen ninety, by reason of which the defendant had to pay forty-five thousand colones for municipal taxes and twenty-two thousand colones for a fine. It follows from the foregoing, without a doubt, that the accused was authorized to occupy the land in question, in accordance with the purposes established by law. He is not a usurper, but rather a person who possessed the lot based on a concession. Therefore, the only irregularity attributed to him is that of not having obtained the respective construction permits in time. However, apart from being a purely administrative matter, the judgment itself indicates that the accused was granted a period to normalize his situation, a period within which he carried out the corresponding procedures, succeeding in obtaining the construction authorization from the respective institutions. In other words, the judge held as true that the initial irregularity was rectified, with the consent of the Municipality, thereby fulfilling the provisions of article 31 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, regarding the approval of plans. It is worth adding that the legal interest (bien jurídico) protected by the relationship of articles 12, 61, 62 and 63 of the cited law does not refer to the administrative aspect of granting a construction permit, but rather refers to the protection of the natural environment of the maritime terrestrial zone. Therefore, if the accused already had a concession over that particular land, the legal interest has not been affected in any way. In this case, then, it is evident that the facts held as proven do not fit any punitive norm. (On all the foregoing points, this Chamber had already ruled in the same sense, in its vote 161-F, of 14:55 hours on August 20, 1985). In accordance with the foregoing, both appeals must be granted, and therefore, ruling on the merits of the matter, the accused Nombre01 is absolved of all penalty and responsibility for the crime of Violation of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre that has been attributed to him to the detriment of the State.-
POR TANTO:
The appeals on the merits (recursos por el fondo) are granted. The accused Nombre01 is absolved of all penalty and responsibility for the crime of Violation of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre that has been attributed to him to the detriment of the State.- The first ground of the appeal on procedural grounds (recurso por la forma) is upheld. The appealed judgment is annulled insofar as it granted the civil action for damages filed by Nombre02 against the civil defendant Nombre03, and ordered him to pay one hundred thousand colones for moral damages (daño moral), fifteen thousand colones for personal costs, and seventy-six colones for procedural costs. The civil plaintiff may resort to the civil courts to pursue his interests. Due to the nature of this ruling and for procedural economy, it is unnecessary to rule on the second ground of the appeal on procedural grounds, and it precludes hearing the appeal on the merits.- Daniel González A.
Jesús A. Ramírez Q. Mario A. Houed V.
Alfonso Chaves R. Rodrigo Castro M.
Ricardo Salas P.
Secretary dig.imp.Ada Resolution 042-F-93 THIRD CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the twenty-second of January of nineteen ninety-three.- Cassation appeal filed in this case against Nombre01, of legal age, merchant, resident of Playa Tamarindo, identity card No. CED01 for the crime of ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE MARITIME TERRESTRIAL ZONE, committed to the detriment of THE STATE. Participating in the decision on the appeal are the Magistrates Daniel González Alvarez, Presiding, Jesús Alberto Ramírez Quirós, Mario Alberto Houed Vega, Alfonso Chaves Ramírez and Rodrigo Castro Monge. Appearing as parties are Attorney Manuel Angel Rojas Días, defender of the accused, and Attorney Jorge Umaña Rodríguez as representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office.-
WHEREAS:
1.- That by means of a judgment issued at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the twenty-eighth of July of nineteen ninety-two, the Criminal Trial Court of Santa Cruz, resolved: "THEREFORE: In accordance with the foregoing and articles one, four, eleven, eighteen, twenty-nine, thirty, forty-five, fifty, fifty-three through fifty-six, fifty-nine and sixty, seventy-one, seventy-nine, of the Penal Code and one, three hundred ninety, three hundred ninety-two, three hundred ninety-three, three hundred ninety-nine, four hundred twenty-one and five hundred twelve, and five hundred forty-two of the Code of Criminal Procedure, twelve, thirteen, fifty-three subsection c) sixty-two and sixty-five of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The accused Nombre01 is declared the responsible perpetrator of VIOLATION OF THE LAW ON THE MARITIME TERRESTRIAL ZONE and for such criminality a penalty of five months' imprisonment is imposed, which, after crediting the preventive detention served, shall be discounted at the site indicated by the respective prison regulations. The loss of the concession (concesión) that Mr. Nombre01 has enjoyed and of the buildings he may have on the respective plot is ordered, which shall be communicated upon the finality of this judgment to the Municipality of Santa Cruz and to the General Registry of Concessions of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute. There are no grounds to order the demolition of the work. The convict is granted the benefit of conditional execution of the sentence for a probation period of three years, being warned of the reasons that will give rise to the revocation of said grace. The costs of the proceeding are to be borne by the accused. ANDRES PEREZ GONZALEZ, JUDGE. JULIA MADRIGAL J. PROSECRETARY." (Sic.).- 2.- That against the preceding ruling the accused Nombre01 filed a cassation appeal. The appellant alleges violation of articles 12, 13, 53, subsection c), 62 and 65 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone and lack of application of numerals 1, 26, 30 and 31 of the Penal Code. He requests that the judgment be overturned.- 3.- That having completed the respective deliberation in accordance with the provisions of article 481 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chamber proceeded to hear the appeal.- 4.- That in the proceedings the pertinent legal requirements have been observed.- MAGISTRATE RAMIREZ DRAFTS THE OPINION; AND,
WHEREAS:
I.- The Chamber has considered the various aspects of the appeal on procedural grounds (recurso por la forma) filed by the accused Nombre01, under the authentication of Attorney Alvaro López Araya, (folios 191 to 197) and, for reasons of procedural economy, has decided to proceed directly to hear the appeals for violation of substantive norms (recursos por el fondo).- II.- Appeals on the merits (recursos por el fondo) filed by the accused Nombre01.- In the first of these challenges (folios 185 to 190), which appears authenticated by Attorney José Francisco Hernández Retana, violation of articles 12, 13, 53, subsection c), 62 and 65 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone is alleged, along with lack of application of numerals 1, 26, 30 and 31 of the Penal Code, since the appellant considers -among other aspects- that the conduct attributed to him is atypical and devoid of criminal intent (dolo), as it does not fall within any of the norms that our positive law punishes as a crime. In the second challenge, authenticated by Attorney Alvaro López Araya, the appellant alleges the breach of the same numerals just cited, as he considers -among other things- that "at most, what occurred was a late approval of the plans, which does not constitute any criminal figure constituting a crime." The appellant is correct in both arguments. In the statement of proven facts of the judgment, it is clearly established -among other aspects- that the accused Nombre01 is "possessor and concessionaire (concesionario)" of a plot, located in the restricted zone of Playa Tamarindo, in Santa Cruz de Guanacaste, land on which he began, in the year nineteen eighty-nine, the construction of a two-story building, "without having the permit from the Municipality of Santa Cruz for this purpose." Furthermore, it was taken as true that on the first of December of that same year, the Municipal Administrative Council of said locality agreed to grant the accused Nombre01 one month "to normalize and process the corresponding permits" and that the plans were indeed approved on the eighth of March of nineteen ninety, as a result of which the accused had to pay forty-five thousand colones for municipal taxes and twenty-two thousand colones for a fine. It follows from the foregoing, without a doubt, that the accused was authorized to occupy the land in question, in accordance with the purposes established by law. He is not a usurper, but rather a person who possessed the lot based on a concession (concesión). Therefore, the only irregularity attributed to him is that of not having obtained the respective construction permits in time. However, aside from it being a purely administrative aspect, the judgment itself indicates that the accused was granted a term to normalize his situation, a period within which he carried out the corresponding procedures, managing to obtain authorization to build from the respective institutions. In other words, the judge took it as true that the initial irregularity was corrected, with the consent of the Municipality, thereby fulfilling the provisions of article 31 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, regarding the approval of plans. It is worth adding that the legal interest (bien jurídico) protected by the combination of articles 12, 61, 62 and 63 of the cited law does not refer to the administrative aspect of granting a building permit, but rather refers to the protection of the natural environment of the maritime terrestrial zone. Therefore, if the accused already had a concession (concesión) over that particular land, the legal interest (bien jurídico) has not been affected in any way. In this case, then, it is evident that the facts taken as proven do not fit into any punitive norm. (Regarding all the foregoing aspects, this Chamber had already ruled in the same sense, in its vote 161-F, of 14:55 hours on August 20, 1985). Pursuant to the foregoing, both appeals must be declared with merit (con lugar), so that, resolving the merits of the matter, the accused Nombre01 is acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for the crime of Violation of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone that has been attributed to him to the detriment of the State.-
THEREFORE:
The appeals on the merits (recursos por el fondo) are declared with merit (con lugar). The accused Nombre01 is acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for the crime of Violation of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone that has been attributed to him to the detriment of the State.- The first ground of the appeal on procedural grounds (recurso por la forma) is accepted. The contested judgment is annulled insofar as it declared with merit the civil action for damages (acción civil resarcitoria) filed by Nombre02 against the civil defendant Nombre03, and condemned him to pay one hundred thousand colones for moral damages, fifteen thousand colones for personal costs, and seventy-six colones for procedural costs. The civil plaintiff may resort to the civil jurisdiction in pursuit of his interests. Due to the nature of this ruling and for procedural economy, it is unnecessary to rule on the second ground on procedural grounds, and it prevents hearing the appeal on the merits (recurso por el fondo) on that point.- Daniel González A.
Jesús A. Ramírez Q. Mario A. Houed V.
Alfonso Chaves R. Rodrigo Castro M.
Ricardo Salas P.
Secretary dig.imp.Ada
00042 Resolución 042-F-93 SALA TERCERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del veintidós de enero de mil novecientos noventa y tres.- Recurso de casación interpuesto en la presente causa contra Nombre01, mayor, comerciante, vecino de Playa Tamarindo, cédula de identidad No.CED01 por el delito de CONSTRUCCION ILEGAL EN LA ZONA MARITIMO TERRESTRE, cometido en perjuicio de EL ESTADO. Intervienen en la decisión del recurso, los Magistrados Daniel González Alvarez, Presidente, Jesús Alberto Ramírez Quirós, Mario Alberto Houed Vega, Alfonso Chaves Ramírez y Rodrigo Castro Monge. Son partes el Licenciado Manuel Angel Rojas Días, defensor del imputado y el Licenciado Jorge Umaña Rodríguez como representante del Ministerio Público.-
RESULTANDO:
1.- Que mediante sentencia dictada a las trece horas treinta minutos del veintiocho de julio de mil novecientos noventa y dos, el Juzgado Penal de Santa Cruz, resolvió: "POR TANTO: De conformidad con lo expuesto y los artículos uno, cuatro, once, dieciocho, veintinueve, treinta, cuarenta y cinco, cincuenta, cincuenta y tres al cincuenta y seis, cincuenta y nueve y sesenta, setenta y uno, setenta y nueve, del Código Penal y uno, trescientos noventa, trescientos noventa y dos, trescientos noventa y tres, trescientos noventa y nueve, cuatrocientos veintiuno y quinientos doce, y quinientos cuarenta y dos del Código de Procedimientos Penales, doce, trece, cincuenta y tres inciso c) sesenta y dos y sesenta y cinco de la Ley sobre la zona Marítimo Terrestre FALLO: Se declara al imputado Nombre01 autor responsable de INFRACCION A LA LEY SOBRE LA ZONA MARITIMO TERRESTRE y por tal delincuencia se le impone una pena de cinco meses de prisión que previo abono de la preventiva sufrida descontará en el sitio que indiquen los reglamentos carcelarios respectivos. Se dispone la pérdida de la concesión de que ha disfrutado el señor Nombre01 y de las edificaciones que tuviere en la parcela respectiva, lo cual se comunicará a la firmeza de esta sentencia a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz y al Registro General de Concesiones del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. No ha lugar a ordenar la demolición de la obra. Se le concede al convicto el beneficio de ejecución condicional de la pena por un período de prueba de tres años quedando advertido de las razones que darán lugar a la revocatoria de dicha gracia. Son las costas del proceso a cargo del encartado. ANDRES PEREZ GONZALEZ, JUEZ. JULIA MADRIGAL J. PROSECRETARIA." (Sic.).- 2.- Que contra el anterior pronunciamiento el imputado Nombre01 interpuso recurso de casación. Alega el recurrente violación de los artículos 12, 13, 53, inciso c), 62 y 65 de la Ley Sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre y falta de aplicación de los numerales 1, 26, 30 y 31 del Código Penal. Solicita se case la sentencia.- 3.- Que verificada la deliberación respectiva de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 481 del Código de Procedimientos Penales, la Sala entró a conocer del recurso.- 4.- Que en los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones legales pertinentes.- REDACTA EL MAGISTRADO RAMIREZ; Y,
CONSIDERANDO:
I.- La Sala se ha planteado los distintos extremos del recurso por la forma interpuesto por el encartado Nombre01, bajo la autenticación del Lic. Alvaro López Araya, (folios 191 a 197) y, por motivos de economía procesal, ha decidido entrar a conocer directamente los recursos por violación de normas sustantivas.- II.- Recursos por el fondo interpuestos por el imputado Nombre01.- En la primera de estas impugnaciones (folios 185 a 190), que aparece autenticada por el Lic. José Francisco Hernández Retana, se alega violación de los artículos 12, 13, 53, inciso c), 62 y 65 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre y falta de aplicación de los numerales 1, 26, 30 y 31 del Código Penal, pues el recurrente considera -entre otros aspectos- que la conducta que se le atribuye es atípica y está desprovista de dolo, pues no cae dentro de ninguna de las normas que nuestro derecho positivo sanciona como delito. En la segunda impugnación, autenticada por el Lic. Alvaro López Araya, el recurrente alega el quebranto de los mismos numerales que se acaban de citar, pues estima -entre otras cosas- que "a lo sumo, lo que hubo fue una aprobación tardía de los planos, lo cual no constituye ninguna figura típica constitutiva de delito". El impugnante lleva razón en ambos alegatos. En la relación de hechos probados de la sentencia, se establece claramente -entre otros aspectos- que el imputado Nombre01 es "poseedor y concesionario" de una parcela, ubicada en la zona restringida de Playa Tamarindo, en Santa Cruz de Guanacaste, terreno en el cual inició, en el año de mil novecientos ochenta y nueve, la construcción de un edificio de dos plantas, "sin contar para ello con el permiso de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz". Además, se tuvo por cierto que el primero de diciembre de ese mismo año, el Consejo Administrativo Municipal de dicha localidad acordó otorgar un mes al imputado Nombre01 "para que normalizara y tramitara los permisos correspondientes" y que efectivamente los planos fueron aprobados el ocho de marzo de mil novecientos noventa, en razón de lo cual el encartado tuvo que cancelar cuarenta y cinco mil colones por concepto de impuestos municipales y veintidós mil colones por concepto de multa. De lo expuesto se desprende, sin lugar a dudas, que el imputado estaba autorizado para ocupar el terreno que interesa, conforme a los fines que señala la ley. No se trata de un usurpador, sino de una persona que poseía el lote con fundamento en una concesión. Por ello, la única irregularidad que se le atribuye es la de no haber obtenido a tiempo los permisos respectivos para construir. Sin embargo, aparte de tratarse de un aspecto puramente administrativo, la propia sentencia señala que al imputado se le otorgó un término para que normalizara su situación, plazo dentro del cual llevó a cabo las gestiones correspondientes, logrando que las instituciones respectivas le concedieran la autorización para construir. En otras palabras, el juzgador tuvo por cierto que la irregularidad inicial fue subsanada, con la anuencia de la Municipalidad, cumpliéndose de esa manera lo dispuesto por el artículo 31 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, respecto a la aprobación de los planos. Vale la pena agregar que el bien jurídico tutelado por la relación de los artículos 12, 61, 62 y 63 de la citada ley, no se refiere al aspecto administrativo del otorgamiento de un permiso para construir, sino que se refiere más bien a la protección del entorno natural de la zona marítimo terrestre. Por ende, si ya el imputado tenía una concesión sobre ese terreno en particular, el bien jurídico no se ha visto afectado en forma alguna. En este caso, pues, resulta evidente que los hechos que se tuvieron por probados no encuadran en ninguna norma punitiva. (Sobre todos los extremos anteriores, ya esta Sala se había pronunciado en el mismo sentido, en su voto 161-F, de las 14:55 horas del 20 de agosto de 1985). Conforme a lo expuesto, ambos recursos deben ser declarados con lugar, por lo que, resolviendo el fondo del asunto, se absuelve de toda pena y responsabilidad al imputado Nombre01 por el delito de Infracción a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre que se le ha venido atribuyendo en daño del Estado.-
POR TANTO:
Se declaran con lugar los recursos por el fondo. Se absuelve de toda pena y responsabilidad al imputado Nombre01 por el delito de Infracción a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre que se le ha venido atribuyendo en daño del Estado.- Se acoge el primer motivo del recurso por la forma. Se anula la sentencia impugnada en cuanto declaró con lugar la acción civil resarcitoria incoada por Nombre02 contra el demandado civil Nombre03, y lo condenó al pago de cien mil colones por concepto de daño moral, quince mil colones por costas personales y setenta y seis colones por costas procesales. Puede el actor civil ocurrir a la vía civil en demanda de sus intereses. En razón de la naturaleza de este pronunciamiento y por economía procesal es innecesario pronunciarse sobre el segundo motivo por la forma, e impide conocer del recurso por el fondo.- Daniel González A.
Jesús A. Ramírez Q. Mario A. Houed V.
Alfonso Chaves R. Rodrigo Castro M.
Ricardo Salas P.
dig.imp.Ada
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.