{ "id": "case-91-000873-0007-CO", "citation": "Exp. 91-000873-0007-CO", "section": "case_summaries", "doc_type": "case_summary", "title_es": "Apelación de sentencia por tala en zona protectora de El Rodeo", "title_en": "Appeal of sentence for logging in El Rodeo protected zone", "summary_es": "La Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia conoció un recurso de casación contra una sentencia condenatoria por tala ilegal de aproximadamente 720 árboles en la Zona Protectora de El Rodeo, un área silvestre protegida bajo la categoría de manejo de zona protectora establecida por decreto ejecutivo. El imputado había sido condenado por el delito de tala ilegal conforme al artículo 58 de la Ley Forestal, en concurso material con el delito de falsedad ideológica. La defensa alegó error en la aplicación de la ley, sosteniendo que la zona protectora no era un área silvestre protegida en sentido estricto, sino una categoría de ordenamiento territorial, y que por tanto los hechos no configuraban delito, sino que estarían amparados bajo un permiso de aprovechamiento emitido por la Dirección General Forestal. Adicionalmente, se cuestionó el allanamiento y la validez de la prueba. La Sala rechazó la casación confirmando la tipicidad de la conducta: la zona protectora es un área silvestre protegida, el permiso de aprovechamiento otorgado era manifiestamente ilegal por contradecir la prohibición absoluta de tala en zonas protectoras, y el consentimiento para el allanamiento fue válido. Se mantuvo la condena, confirmando la interpretación de que la tala en zonas protectoras constituye delito forestal.", "summary_en": "The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice heard a cassation appeal against a conviction for the illegal logging of approximately 720 trees in the El Rodeo Protected Zone, a wild protected area under the management category of protected zone established by executive decree. The defendant had been convicted of illegal logging under Article 58 of the Forestry Law, in material concurrence with the crime of ideological falsehood. The defense alleged error in the application of the law, arguing that the protected zone was not a wild protected area in the strict sense but rather a land-use planning category, and that therefore the facts did not constitute a crime because they were covered by a logging permit issued by the General Forestry Directorate. Additionally, the search and seizure and the validity of the evidence were challenged. The Chamber rejected the appeal, confirming the criminality of the conduct: the protected zone is a wild protected area, the logging permit granted was manifestly illegal because it contradicted the absolute prohibition of logging in protected zones, and the consent for the search was valid. The conviction was upheld, confirming the interpretation that logging in protected zones constitutes a forestry crime.", "court_or_agency": "", "date": "", "year": "", "topic_ids": [ "criminal-environmental", "forestry-law-7575" ], "primary_topic_id": "criminal-environmental", "es_concept_hints": [ "zona protectora", "área silvestre protegida", "aprovechamiento forestal", "casación", "acto absolutamente nulo", "orden público ambiental", "allanamiento" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 58", "law": "Ley Forestal" }, { "article": "Art. 32", "law": "Ley Forestal" }, { "article": "Art. 32", "law": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente" }, { "article": "Art. 34", "law": "Ley Forestal" } ], "keywords_es": [ "zona protectora", "tala ilegal", "área silvestre protegida", "Ley Forestal", "delito ambiental", "aprovechamiento forestal", "casación", "El Rodeo" ], "keywords_en": [ "protected zone", "illegal logging", "wild protected area", "Forestry Law", "environmental crime", "forest use permit", "cassation appeal", "El Rodeo" ], "excerpt_es": "Es claro entonces que las Zonas Protectoras constituyen áreas silvestres protegidas, sujetas a un régimen de protección especial (artículo 32 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y 32 y 34 de la Ley Forestal), lo que obliga a la Administración a declararlas como tales y a manejarlas para cumplir con su cometido de protección de los ecosistemas, las cuencas hidrográficas y, en general, el ambiente.\n\n... el recurrente procuró hacer ver a los juzgadores que la tala desarrollada era legítima, pues se contaba con autorización de la Administración Forestal del Estado... Sin embargo, la autorización que se brindó en ese momento era contraria a las disposiciones mínimas de protección del bosque y la zona protectora, que prohibían de manera absoluta la tala de árboles en ese tipo de áreas de protección... la autorización otorgada por la Administración constituye un acto absolutamente nulo, por violentar normas de orden público que tutelan el ambiente.\n\n... en lo que atañe al consentimiento para el ingreso de los funcionarios judiciales a la propiedad del encartado... es notorio que se obtuvo legítimamente, por parte de su propio dueño y en presencia de testigos, a quienes también se les hizo saber el motivo del allanamiento...", "excerpt_en": "It is clear then that Protected Zones constitute wild protected areas, subject to a special protection regime (Article 32 of the Organic Environmental Law and 32 and 34 of the Forestry Law), which obliges the Administration to declare them as such and to manage them to fulfill their purpose of protecting ecosystems, watersheds, and the environment in general.\n\n... the appellant sought to make the judges believe that the logging carried out was legitimate because it had authorization from the State Forestry Administration... However, the authorization given at that time was contrary to the minimum provisions for the protection of the forest and the protected zone, which absolutely prohibited the felling of trees in that type of protection area... the authorization granted by the Administration constitutes an absolutely null act, as it violates norms of public order that protect the environment.\n\n... regarding the consent for the entry of judicial officials onto the defendant's property... it is notorious that it was obtained legitimately, from the owner himself and in the presence of witnesses, who were also informed of the reason for the search...", "outcome": { "label_en": "Conviction upheld", "label_es": "Sentencia condenatoria confirmada", "summary_en": "The Third Chamber rejected the cassation appeal and upheld the conviction for illegal logging in a protected zone and ideological falsehood, declaring that the protected zone is a wild protected area and that the logging permit was absolutely null because it contravened the logging prohibition.", "summary_es": "La Sala Tercera rechazó el recurso de casación y confirmó la condena por tala ilegal en zona protectora y falsedad ideológica, declarando que la zona protectora es un área silvestre protegida y que el permiso de aprovechamiento era absolutamente nulo por contravenir la prohibición de tala." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando único", "quote_en": "It is clear then that Protected Zones constitute wild protected areas, subject to a special protection regime.", "quote_es": "Es claro entonces que las Zonas Protectoras constituyen áreas silvestres protegidas, sujetas a un régimen de protección especial." }, { "context": "Considerando único", "quote_en": "The authorization granted by the Administration constitutes an absolutely null act, as it violates norms of public order that protect the environment.", "quote_es": "La autorización otorgada por la Administración constituye un acto absolutamente nulo, por violentar normas de orden público que tutelan el ambiente." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-81831", "url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-81831", "kind": "case_sentence", "label": "Ver texto del voto", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-81831" } ] }, "source_url": "", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "", "body_en_text": "Expediente 91-000873-0007-CO\n\nRes. Nº 01319 - 92\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at fourteen hours on May twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and ninety-two.\n\nAction for unconstitutionality brought by MARCO TULIO VARELA FALLAS, bearer of identity card number 1-444-335, against the Municipality of Vázquez de Coronado, regarding its NO vote and MINORITY REPORT on Municipal Agreement No. 1, Article 6, of January 9, 1991, published in La Gaceta No. 196 of October 15, 1991.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- The plaintiff objects to Municipal Agreement No. 1, Article 6, of January 9, 1991, of the defendant Municipality, published in the official newspaper La Gaceta No. 196 of October 15, 1991, which reads:\n\n\"ARTICLE 6: AGREEMENTS:\n\na- To authorize the Mayor to sign the respective contracts in relation to the transfer of the property to the INVU. (Unanimously approved with 5 votes).\n\nb- To lawfully designate that the lands are exclusively for the construction of housing of social interest with their own services by the Institute. (Unanimously approved with 5 votes).\n\nc- The transfer and sale of the lands located in the district of San Rafael, referred to in the report rendered by Mr. Danilo Vega, is approved, so that the Institute can fulfill the task that gave rise to its origin by law, identifying the lands as follows...\"\n\nThe plaintiff claims that said act violates the Law of Planning, the Law of Urban Planning Construction and in particular the Forestry Law, Articles 18 and 19 of the Political Constitution, the principle of legality contained in Article 11 of the Political Constitution and of the General Public Administration Law, and also violates Article 50 of the Political Constitution, as well as Article 89 of the Municipal Code.\n\n2.- This action was brought before the Constitutional Jurisdiction on May 3, 1991 at 1:30 p.m., and by ruling of the Presidency of the Chamber at fourteen hours on November 6, 1991, it was granted leave to proceed and the interested parties were summoned.\n\n3.- The legal notices referred to in Article 81 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law were made.\n\n4.- Written statements were filed by Laura Ma. Díaz Varela, Municipal Attorney, and Sergio Mena White, titled as Legal Advisor.\n\n5.- The evidentiary period was opened by resolution of 10:00 a.m. on February 28, 1992.\n\n6.- In the proceedings, the constitutional ad-cautelam consultation was dispensed with, based on Article 84 paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.\n\n7.- In the sub examine, with the evidence received, the constitutional matter was duly deliberated, so it is appropriate to render the ruling within the scope of the powers referred to in Article 85 of the Law of this Jurisdiction.\n\nRedacting the Magistrate Arguedas; and,\n\nConsiderando:\n\nI.- The action is admissible and this Chamber is competent to hear it, since the claim against a municipal agreement, insofar as it participates in the nature of a provision of a general nature, is established in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10, 48 of the Political Constitution and Article 1, following, of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.\n\nII.- The action must be declared without merit in all its extremes. The claimant essentially alleges that: a) The challenged agreement is illegal because it contravenes the law and is based on false facts, in addition to lacking studies on environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA), or referring to them, and omitting, even, a diagnosis of the land's suitability for construction; b) By failing to designate an area as a protective zone of the spring (naciente) that supplies water to the aqueduct of San Rafael, or the respective easements (servidumbres) that it requires, and by allowing the felling of trees in a declared forest zone, the provisions of the Forestry Law are violated and consequently also Articles 18, 19, 50, 11 of the Political Constitution, as well as Article 89 of the Municipal Code, and the Law of Planning and the Law of Urban Planning Construction, among others.\n\nIII. As one of the most important and central grievances of the action, the claimant alleges the violation of the Forestry Law, without determining or specifying in relation to which of the articles the alleged infringement occurs, but of the reading of the lawsuit, the possible infringement of Articles 1, 18, 19, 20, 32 and 34, among others of the Forestry Law can be deduced. In the opinion of the claimant, the challenged agreement authorizes the felling of trees in a zone protected by the aforementioned law, all of this without prior studies of environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental). According to the first article of the Forestry Law \"the conservation, protection, improvement, inspection, rational use, for industrial, ornamental and other purposes, promotion and management of the country's forest resources is declared to be of public interest and essentially obligatory...\" Article 18 of the same law states: \"The areas of natural forest cover (cobertura boscosa) that are determining factors for the protection and good regime of hydrographic basins and for the formation of water sources for public supply are declared to be of public interest and subject to the laws and provisions of this law...\" Article 19 states: \"The permanent nature of the following forest lands is established: a) The areas of natural forest cover (cobertura boscosa) that protect land with slopes greater than forty percent (40%). b) The areas of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) that are determining factors for the protection and good regime of hydrographic basins and springs (nacientes) for public water supply. c) The areas of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) that protect or help protect water sources for hydroelectric plants. d) National Parks, Biological Reserves, Forest Reserves and Protective Zones. The permanent nature (irreductibilidad) of these forest lands will be maintained as long as the safety and public interest reasons that motivated it remain...\" In the present case, although it is true that being located in a forest zone, the INVU must submit the project to the respective studies and feasibility of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), it has not been proven in the case file that the challenged agreement directly orders the felling of trees, so that, in any case, it would be the construction act that is being challenged, but that is not the appropriate moment, nor is it the appropriate channel, since this will depend on future acts. The Constitutional Court has stated in numerous rulings that \"the mere approval of the plan does not of itself violate any environmental provision, but its defects can and should be corrected in the specific stage of construction\" (See in this regard Vote 1126-91 of 9:15 a.m. on June 11, 1991).\n\nIV.- From the point of view of the Municipal Code, Article 89, the plaintiff claims that the municipal council acted without jurisdiction. It has this Chamber, in this specific case, analyzed said infringement and concluded that it is also not applicable, since the council acted as a body holding the municipal competence and in accordance with the provisions of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, which corresponds to the Municipality of the Canton of Vázquez de Coronado, and its Municipality is the one that must ensure and watch over the interests of the community and especially over the use of municipal public lands. In the specific case, it appears that it is private lands that are being disposed of, even though they may be subject to limitations of Law, municipal for reasons of public interest such as those imposed by the Forestry Law, the Urban Planning Law or any other applicable law. But the fact that the INVU is authorized in the challenged act to acquire the property in question does not in itself prove that the latter will violate those provisions. Even the representative of the INVU himself, when responding to this suit, expressly acknowledged that the Institute will submit to the legal provisions and municipal regulations for the eventual construction on the lands to be transferred.\n\nV.- Consequently, the act challenged through this action does not by its sole approval and publication constitute a direct, certain and effective infringement of the constitutional provisions that are cited, nor is it the appropriate means to determine the eventual and contingent violation that could occur if the project were to be executed in disregard of the technical and legal regulations that govern the matter, so that what is appropriate is to declare the action without merit in all its extremes, as will be done in the operative part of this ruling.\n\nPor Tanto:\n\nThe action is declared WITHOUT MERIT in all its extremes.\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M.\nPresidente a.i.\n\nVicente Arguedas R.\nEduardo Sancho G.\nCarlos M. Arguedas R.\nAna Virginia Calzada M.\nFernando del Castillo R.\nLuis Fernando Solano C.\nGerardo Madriz M.\nSecretario" }