{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1341145", "citation": "Res. 00963-2025 Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal III Circuito Judicial de Alajuela San Ramón", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Comiso parcial de bienes en delito de psicotrópicos", "title_en": "Partial forfeiture of assets in psychotropic drug crime", "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia del Tercer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Ramón, conoció del recurso de apelación interpuesto por el Ministerio Público contra la sentencia abreviada 185-P-2025, en la que se condenó a los imputados por el delito de infracción a la Ley de Psicotrópicos. La fiscalía cuestionó que en el fallo no se ordenara el comiso de un teléfono iPhone y de una motocicleta Formula, bienes que estimaba vinculados al hecho delictivo. El Tribunal de Apelación acogió parcialmente el reclamo. En cuanto al teléfono iPhone, revocó la decisión de instancia y ordenó su comiso (o destrucción) a favor del Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, por considerar que existían pruebas suficientes que demostraban que el dispositivo, propiedad del acusado, fue utilizado para coordinar la venta de droga con un agente encubierto. Respecto a la motocicleta, la cual pertenecía a un tercero, confirmó la denegatoria del comiso, pues no se acreditó que su dueño registral hubiera consentido o participado en la actividad delictiva; la simple omisión de reclamar el bien no bastaba para desvirtuar la presunción de buena fe que ampara a terceros (arts. 21 y 455 del Código Civil y 2 del Código de Comercio).", "summary_en": "The Sentence Appeals Court of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Ramón, heard the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office against abbreviated judgment 185-P-2025, which convicted the defendants for violating the Psychotropic Substances Law. The prosecution contested the trial court's refusal to order the forfeiture of an iPhone and a Formula motorcycle, assets it believed were tied to the crime. The Appeals Court partially granted the appeal. Regarding the iPhone, it reversed the lower court's decision and ordered its forfeiture (or destruction) in favor of the Costa Rican Drug Institute, finding sufficient evidence that the device, owned by the defendant, was used to coordinate the drug sale with an undercover agent. As for the motorcycle, which belonged to a third party, the court upheld the denial of forfeiture, as it was not proven that the registered owner had consented to or participated in the criminal activity; the owner's mere failure to claim the property was insufficient to overcome the presumption of good faith protecting third parties (arts. 21 and 455 of the Civil Code and 2 of the Commercial Code).", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal III Circuito Judicial de Alajuela San Ramón", "date": "08/10/2025", "year": "2025", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "comiso", "buena fe", "tercero adquirente de buena fe", "Ley 8204", "Ley de Psicotrópicos", "Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas", "presunción legal", "Código Penal" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "comiso", "Ley de Psicotrópicos 8204", "apelación de sentencia", "derechos de terceros", "buena fe", "presunción de buena fe", "actividad delictiva", "Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas", "prueba de ligamen" ], "keywords_en": [ "forfeiture", "Psychotropic Substances Law 8204", "sentence appeal", "third-party rights", "good faith", "presumption of good faith", "criminal activity", "Costa Rican Drug Institute", "evidentiary link" ], "excerpt_es": "A contrario sensu, cuando existan pruebas que demuestren que el bien ha sido utilizado para la comisión de un delito, el juez debe analizar la procedencia de ordenar el comiso, según otras disposiciones establecidas por el legislador, en cuanto al respeto de los derechos de terceras personas. Además, cuando el objeto a decomisar se trate de un bien que le pertenece a un tercero adquirente de buena fe, es procedente el comiso cuando exista prueba que demuestre que el titular registral de dicho bien ha facilitado o consentido (tácita o expresamente) el uso de dicho bien para la comisión de un hecho delictivo.", "excerpt_en": "Conversely, when evidence shows that an asset has been used to commit a crime, the judge must analyze whether forfeiture is appropriate under other legislative provisions, while respecting the rights of third parties. Moreover, when the item to be forfeited belongs to a good-faith third party, forfeiture is appropriate if there is evidence showing that the registered owner of the asset facilitated or consented (tacitly or expressly) to its use for a criminal act.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Partially granted", "label_es": "Parcialmente con lugar", "summary_en": "The lower court's ruling is partially reversed: the iPhone forfeiture is ordered; the denial of the motorcycle forfeiture is upheld because it belongs to a good-faith third party.", "summary_es": "Se revoca parcialmente el fallo de instancia y se ordena el comiso del teléfono iPhone; se confirma la denegatoria del comiso de la motocicleta por pertenecer a un tercero de buena fe." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "Conversely, when evidence shows that an asset has been used to commit a crime, the judge must analyze whether forfeiture is appropriate under other legislative provisions, while respecting the rights of third parties.", "quote_es": "A contrario sensu, cuando existan pruebas que demuestren que el bien ha sido utilizado para la comisión de un delito, el juez debe analizar la procedencia de ordenar el comiso, según otras disposiciones establecidas por el legislador, en cuanto al respeto de los derechos de terceras personas." }, { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "When the item to be forfeited belongs to a good-faith third party, forfeiture is appropriate if there is evidence showing that the registered owner of the asset facilitated or consented (tacitly or expressly) to its use for a criminal act.", "quote_es": "Cuando el objeto a decomisar se trate de un bien que le pertenece a un tercero adquirente de buena fe, es procedente el comiso cuando exista prueba que demuestre que el titular registral de dicho bien ha facilitado o consentido (tácita o expresamente) el uso de dicho bien para la comisión de un hecho delictivo." }, { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "There is a presumption, according to article 455 of the Civil Code, as well as based on article 21 of the Civil Code and article 2 of the Commercial Code, that good faith is presumed in business dealings, and instead, evidence must exist to overcome that presumption.", "quote_es": "Existe una presunción de conformidad con el artículo 455 del Código Civil, así como con base en el artículo 21 del Código Civil y el artículo 2 del Código de Comercio, la buena fe se presume en la realización de los negocios, y más bien, debe existir prueba que derrumbe dicha presunción." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-48392", "citation": "Ley 8204", "title_en": "Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Unauthorized Drugs, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Terrorism Financing", "title_es": "Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, actividades conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo", "doc_type": "law", "date": "26/12/2001", "year": "2001" }, { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" }, { "id": "norm-41297", "citation": "Ley 7594", "title_en": "Criminal Procedure Code — Criminal Action in Environmental Crimes", "title_es": "Código Procesal Penal — Acción penal en delitos ambientales", "doc_type": "law", "date": "10/04/1996", "year": "1996" }, { "id": "norm-5027", "citation": "Ley 4573", "title_en": "Penal Code — Law 4573", "title_es": "Código Penal — Ley 4573", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/05/1970", "year": "1970" }, { "id": "norm-6239", "citation": "Ley 3284", "title_en": "Commercial Code", "title_es": "Código de Comercio", "doc_type": "law", "date": "30/04/1964", "year": "1964" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" }, { "id": "norm-41297", "citation": "Ley 7594", "title_en": "Criminal Procedure Code — Criminal Action in Environmental Crimes", "title_es": "Código Procesal Penal — Acción penal en delitos ambientales", "doc_type": "law", "date": "10/04/1996", "year": "1996" }, { "id": "norm-48392", "citation": "Ley 8204", "title_en": "Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Unauthorized Drugs, Related Activities, Money Laundering, and Terrorism Financing", "title_es": "Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, actividades conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo", "doc_type": "law", "date": "26/12/2001", "year": "2001" }, { "id": "norm-5027", "citation": "Ley 4573", "title_en": "Penal Code — Law 4573", "title_es": "Código Penal — Ley 4573", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/05/1970", "year": "1970" }, { "id": "norm-6239", "citation": "Ley 3284", "title_en": "Commercial Code", "title_es": "Código de Comercio", "doc_type": "law", "date": "30/04/1964", "year": "1964" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-48392", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 8204 Art. 83" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-1341145", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_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": [ { "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/01/1888" }, { "doc_id": "norm-41297", "norm_num": "7594", "norm_name": "Código Procesal Penal — Acción penal en delitos ambientales", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "10/04/1996" }, { "doc_id": "norm-48392", "norm_num": "8204", "norm_name": "Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, actividades conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "26/12/2001" }, { "doc_id": "norm-5027", "norm_num": "4573", "norm_name": "Código Penal — Ley 4573", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/05/1970" }, { "doc_id": "norm-6239", "norm_num": "3284", "norm_name": "Código de Comercio", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "30/04/1964" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "PODER JUDICIAL \n\r\n\nTRIBUNAL DE APELACIÓN DE SENTENCIA DEL TERCER CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE ALAJUELA, SAN RAMÓN \n\r\n\n Tel: 2456-9069 tapelacion-sra@poder-judicial.go.cr Fax: 2445-5349 \n\r\n\n____________________________________________________________________________________________\n\r\n\nExp: 24-001168-0061-PE\n\r\n\nRes: 2025-00963\n\r\n\n TRIBUNAL DE APELACIÓN DE SENTENCIA DEL TERCER CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE ALAJUELA, SECCIÓN PRIMERA. San Ramón, al ser las catorce horas cuarenta y un minutos del ocho de octubre de dos mil veinticinco.\n\r\n\n RECURSO DE APELACIÓN DE SENTENCIA interpuesto en la presente causa seguida contra [Nombre 001], costarricense, cédula de identidad número [Valor 001] y [Nombre 002], costarricense, cédula de identidad número [Valor 002], por el delito de INFRACCIÓN A LA LEY DE PSICOTRÓPICOS, en perjuicio de LA SALUD PÚBLICA. Intervienen en la decisión del recurso, los jueces Adriana Escalante Moncada, José Alberto Rojas Chacón y Francisco Lemus Víquez. Se apersona en apelación de sentencia, la licenciada Patricia María Núñez Alvarado, en calidad de representante del Ministerio Público.\n\r\n\n RESULTANDO:\n\r\n\n 1.- Que mediante sentencia número 185-P-2025 de las trece horas del dos junio de dos mil veinticinco, el Tribunal de Juicio de Heredia, resolvió: \"POR TANTO: De conformidad con los razonamientos expuestos y artículos 39 y 41 de la Constitución Política; 11 de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos; 8 inciso segundo de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos; 1, 4, 16, 18 a 20, 30, 45, 50, 51, 110 del Código Penal; 1, 45, 47, 130, 141 a 145, 265 a 269, 360, 361, 363 a 365, 367, 373 a 375 del Código Procesal Penal; 58 de la Ley Nº 8204 Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado y actividades conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo se declara a [Nombre 001] y [Nombre 002] coautores responsables de un delito de Infracción a la ley de psicotrópicos, en su modalidad de posesión, transporte y venta de droga, en perjuicio de la Salud Pública y en virtud de la aplicación del Procedimiento abreviado se les impone el tanto de NUEVE AÑOS DE PRISIÓN y OCHO AÑOS DE PRISIÓN respectivamente, pena que deberán descontar en el lugar y forma que determinen los respectivos reglamentos penitenciarios, previo descuento de la preventiva sufrida. En aras de garantizar el cumplimiento de la sanción impuesta, se prorroga la prisión preventiva de los encartados por un término de SEIS meses más a partir de su vencimiento, del 15 de junio de 2025 y hasta el 15 de diciembre de 2025, plazo suficiente para que la sentencia adquiera firmeza. Se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas, debiendo asumir el encartado [Nombre 001] los honorarios de su defensa particular. Son los gastos del proceso a cargo del Estado. Firme esta sentencia, remítanse las comunicaciones de estilo al Instituto Nacional de Criminología de la Dirección General de Adaptación Social, Juzgado de Ejecución de la Pena y Registro Judicial de Delincuentes. De conformidad con el artículo 110 del Código Penal, así como los artículos 83 y 87 de la Ley 8204, se ordena el comiso a favor de Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas del dinero decomisado en las actas de secuestro 0244772 y 0229020, que corresponde con lo descrito en los depósitos visibles a folios 243 y 285 del tomo I. Se ordena el comiso y se autoriza la destrucción de los teléfonos y sus respectivas tarjetas SIM, decomisados bajo las Actas 0244770 y 0244772 que corresponden a un teléfono celular marca Samsung, color azul, sin IMEI visible, una tarjeta SIM marca Kolbi número 8950601092321395307 con estuche color azul y un teléfono celular marca AZUMI color negro IMEI 353558480141308 tarjeta sim 8950601092321074101 marca Kolbi Se ordena el comiso a favor de Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas, del vehículo marca Hyundai, año 2013, serie VIN número KMHJV81VBDVS44477, placa [Valor 003]. Por no haberse demostrado ligamen alguno entre el objeto con la causa investigada, se ordena la devolución del teléfono celular marca Apple, estilo Iphone, color gris a quien demuestre ser su legítimo dueño para lo cual se otorga un plazo de 3 meses, caso contrario se ordena su comiso y destrucción. Se ordena la devolución de la motocicleta marca Fórmula color roja, tipo montañera, estilo Cyclone, modelo XF2050, años 2024 a su dueño registral para lo cual se otorga un plazo de 3 meses, caso contrario se ordena su comiso y destrucción. De conformidad con la circular 293-2023 del Consejo Superior se le informa a los sentenciados que en etapa de ejecución de la pena pueden hacer uso de los servicios de la defensa publica por lo que deberán informarlo al Juzgado de Ejecución de la Pena competente. Notifiquese. Vanessa Ledezma Solórzano. Jueza de Juicio\".\n\r\n\n 2.- Que contra el anterior pronunciamiento, la licenciada Patricia María Núñez Alvarado, ha interpuesto recurso de apelación de sentencia.\n\r\n\n 3.- Que verificada la deliberación respectiva, de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 465 del Código Procesal Penal, el Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia del III Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, San Ramón, procedió a conocer del recurso.\n\r\n\n 4.- Que en los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones legales pertinentes.\n\r\n\n Redacta la Jueza de Apelación de Sentencia Escalante Moncada; y,\n\r\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\r\n\nI. La fiscal Patricia María Núñez Alvarado, interpone recurso de apelación contra la sentencia abreviada número 185-2025 de las trece horas del dos de junio del dos mil veinticinco. En el único motivo invoca errónea aplicación de los artículos 103 y 110 del Código Penal y los artículos 83 y 87 de la ley 8204. Sostiene que, de manera injustificada, se rechazó el comiso que peticionó el ente acusador, sobre los siguientes bienes: motocicleta marca Formula, modelo XRF250, tipo montañera, color rojo, que registralmente aparece a nombre de un tercero; sin embargo, consta en el expediente que el Ministerio Público en su momento procesal dio audiencia al tercero de buena fe y el mismo no se apersonó. Sobre este bien sostiene que el Tribunal de juicio no expresó fundamento jurídico para denegar dicha pretensión, además no detalló cuál es el razonamiento lógico, jurídico y probatorio por el cual se arriba a dicha conclusión. En relación con el aparato celular Iphone, detalla que los informes policiales destacaban que este objeto estaba en posesión del imputado y se demuestra que este fue el medio que usó para negociar la droga. Considera que la decisión de instancia de rechazar el comiso carece de una adecuada fundamentación intelectiva y descriptiva. Además, detalla que, en la negociación del proceso abreviado, las partes estuvieron de acuerdo con la solicitud de comiso formulada por el Ministerio Público. Solicita se anule el fallo únicamente en este extremo y que por economía procesal en alzada se ordene el comiso del teléfono celular marca Apple, estilo iPhone, color gris y de la motocicleta marca Fórmula color rojo, tipo montañera, estilo Cyclone, modelo XF2050, años 2024,\n\r\n\nII. Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso. Examinados los alegatos del recurso, evaluada la sentencia y revisados los autos, se concluye que le asiste parcialmente razón a la recurrente conforme se explica a continuación.\n\r\n\nSe deriva con facilidad, que el Ministerio Público expone su objeción por cuanto en la sentencia del proceso abreviado no se ordenó el comiso de dos bienes, a saber, un celular marca Apple, estilo iPhone, y la motocicleta estilo Cyclone, modelo XF2050, año 2024. Para fundamentar la denegatoria del comiso sobre dichos bienes, la juzgadora en la sentencia refirió lo siguiente:\n\r\n\n“Por no haberse demostrado ligamen alguno entre el objeto con la causa investigada, se ordena la devolución del teléfono celular marca Apple, estilo Iphone, color gris a quien demuestre ser su legítimo dueño para lo cual se otorga un plazo de 3 meses, caso contrario se ordena su comiso y destrucción. Se ordena la devolución de la motocicleta marca Fórmula color roja, tipo montañera, estilo Cyclone, modelo XF2050, años 2024 a su dueño registral”\n\r\n\nComo se aprecia, la razón esencial para denegar el comiso de esos bienes es que el Tribunal de instancia estimó que no existía prueba suficiente para demostrar el ligamen de dichos objetos con el hecho juzgado en este asunto. \n\r\n\nEste argumento sería válido, cuando no existen pruebas que demuestren que un bien u objeto ha sido utilizado como instrumento para la comisión de un delito. A contrario sensu, cuando existan pruebas que demuestren que el bien ha sido utilizado para la comisión de un delito, el juez debe analizar la procedencia de ordenar el comiso, según otras disposiciones establecidas por el legislador, en cuanto al respeto de los derechos de terceras personas. Además, cuando el objeto a decomisar se trate de un bien que le pertenece a un tercero adquirente de buena fe, es procedente el comiso cuando exista prueba que demuestre que el titular registral de dicho bien ha facilitado o consentido (tácita o expresamente) el uso de dicho bien para la comisión de un hecho delictivo. Sobre este tópico relativo a los bienes inscritos a nombre de terceras personas la Sala de Casación Penal ha indicado lo siguiente:\n\r\n\n“Ha sido el criterio de esta Sala que tratándose del comiso de bienes, los juzgadores deben ser muy cautos y celosos al momento de adoptar tal decisión, pues con ello se podría afectar no sólo los derechos y garantías de los acusados, sino también los intereses de terceras personas ajenas al proceso. Así, en este tipo de asuntos, para definir la privación absoluta y definitiva de un bien se debe -en primer lugar- determinar con certeza que el mismo proviene del tráfico de drogas, o bien, es utilizado en dicha actividad, y -en segundo lugar- se debe establecer quién o quiénes son los propietarios de esos bienes, para determinar su relación con el hecho delictivo, que sólo si han sido utilizados enel tráfico de drogas por sus propietarios o con la aceptación tácita o directa de estos, podría ordenarse el comiso. Para tales efectos, además, debe tenerse como parte en el proceso a los propietarios de los bienes susceptibles de ser confiscados, a fin de no afectar los derechos de todas aquellas personas que no tienen ninguna relación con el ilícito. No basta, por tanto, la mera probabilidad o presunción respecto a ello, sino que se requiere la certeza, pues de aceptarse la posibilidad del comiso a partir de probabilidades o presunciones estaríamos violentando los principios que informan el debido proceso, como lo son: el principio de legalidad, de inocencia, de defensa, de juicio justo, de culpabilidad, etc”. (Sala de Casación Penal número 01291 – 2013)\n\r\n\nRetomando el caso en estudio, se tiene que con relación al teléfono marca Apple, estilo iPhone es incorrecta la afirmación del Tribunal de instancia en la que indica que no existen probanzas para demostrar que el teléfono Apple fue utilizado para realizar la actividad delictiva. \n\r\n\nEsto es así, debido a que, revisados los autos, se tiene que, el número de línea celular [Valor 005] y el teléfono iPhone se mencionan de manera central en el Informe Policial N° 398-RCI-DPP-2024 y sus ampliaciones. En el citado informe se identifica el servicio telefónico número [Valor 004] como el número que le fue brindado al agente encubierto (identificado como \"[Nombre 003]\") para contactar y negociar con el sospechoso [Nombre 001]. Además, se realizó una consulta al ICE, donde se indicó que el servicio telefónico número [Valor 004] está a nombre del imputado, [Nombre 001]. Asimismo, se verificó mediante la aplicación SINPE, que el número [Valor 004] se encuentra ligado a una cuenta del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica a nombre del imputado. Luego, en la ampliación de informe policial 398-RCI-DRP-2024 de fecha de junio de 2024, se menciona que para el momento de la detención de [Nombre 001] a este se le decomisó un teléfono celular marca Apple, estilo Iphone, color gris, pantalla frontal y trasera quebrada, con estuche negro, actuación que está documentada con el acta número 244769. Asimismo, los agentes judiciales, el 15 de junio de 2024, ejecutaron la prueba de tenencia telefónica, donde se efectuó una llamada al número [Valor 005] desde el número [Valor 006], obteniendo resultado positivo con el teléfono celular marca Apple, estilo Iphone, decomisado al encartado el día de su detención. Finalmente, en ese informe se destalla que la línea celular [Valor 004] fue utilizada por [Nombre 001] para comunicarse con el agente encubierto y coordinar la venta de la droga. \n\r\n\nDe estas probanzas, se desprende con claridad que, en lo concerniente al teléfono celular marca Apple, estilo iPhone, que posee la línea celular [Valor 005], sí existen probanzas que permiten sostener con la certeza requerida que dicho dispositivo móvil fue utilizado para la actividad delictiva, por parte del encartado [Nombre 001], asimismo, se cuenta con prueba suficiente que permite sostener que dicho bien es propiedad del acusado [Nombre 001]. Por lo que, con base en las probanzas, y según lo dispuesto en el artículo 110 del Código Penal y el artículo 83 de la Ley 8204, se ordena el comiso y destrucción del teléfono marca Apple, estilo iPhone decomisado mediante acta número 244769.\n\r\n\nEn lo concerniente a la motocicleta placa Motocicleta marca Formula, placa [Valor 007], color rojo, tipo montanera, estilo ciclone, modelo XRF250, año 2024, decomisada mediante acta número 0196170, no le asiste razón a la fiscalía. Conforme se indicó líneas atrás, cuando los bienes decomisados les pertenecen a terceras personas, aparte de la utilización del bien en la actividad delictiva, se deberá demostrar que el dueño participó en la acción delictiva, o que prestó los bienes para que fueran utilizados para dicho fin o que exista prueba que demuestre que de forma expresa o tácita que el dueño conocía el fin para el cual sería utilizado dicho bien. En este asunto, y según las probanzas, en especial el informe policial N° 398-RCI-DPP-2024, la referida motocicleta está vinculada con el suceso ocurrido el 15 de junio de 2024, ocasión en la que los endilgados [Nombre 001] y [Nombre 002], se transportan en dicha moto hasta el sitio en el cual se hace la venta de droga al agente encubierto y después se retiran de dicho sector usando dicho medio de transporte, y finalmente son detenidos por los agentes judiciales. Si bien no es un hecho controvertido el uso de dicha motocicleta en la actividad delictiva, de lo que no existen probanzas suficientes es para arribar a la conclusión de que el dueño de dicha motocicleta, a saber, [Nombre 005], esté involucrado en dicha actividad delictiva, o que prestara su consentimiento tácito o expreso para que ese bien fuera utilizado para la ejecución de dicha actividad ilícita. Si bien, en autos consta que el Ministerio Público le dio audiencia a [Nombre 005] sobre el decomiso del bien, y a la fecha este no ha presentado gestión alguna para reclamar la titularidad de dicho bien, esa omisión por parte del dueño registral no es un indicio suficiente que permita concluir razonadamente que éste prestó la motocicleta a los encartados, con la finalidad de que fuera utilizada para un hecho delictivo. Nótese que, esa motocicleta solamente se usa en una ocasión, a saber, el 15 de junio de 2024. Además, en los informes no se describe alguna participación de [Nombre 005] en alguno de los dos eventos ocurridos, el 01 de junio o el 15 de junio, salvo el uso de su motocicleta en este último suceso. Además, hay que recordar que según lo disponen los artículos 83 y siguientes de la Ley 8204, y en especial el artículo 94, le corresponde al ente acusador, demostrar la participación del tercero o el conocimiento de este en los hechos, ya que la carga de la prueba le corresponde a quien pretenda el decomiso de un bien. Finalmente, hay que destacar que, existe una presunción de conformidad con el artículo 455 del Código Civil, así como con base en el artículo 21 del Código Civil y el artículo 2 del Código de Comercio, la buena fe se presume en la realización de los negocios, y más bien, debe existir prueba que derrumbe dicha presunción, y en este caso, la omisión del dueño registral de apersonarse al proceso no constituye prueba suficiente para derribar esa presunción legal.\n\r\n\nPor otra parte, hay que destacar que, se constata que, en este asunto, y según consta a folio 547 del I Tomo, el Instituto Costarricense Contra Drogas, según lo preceptuado en el artículo 83 de la ley 8204, realizó una valoración económica de la motocicleta decomisada, e indicó que para los fines que se establecen en dicha normativa, dicho bien carece de valor económico, por el mal estado en que se encuentra la motocicleta decomisada, y que en ese sentido no tienen interés en dicho bien, por lo que también se constata la carencia de agravio en cuanto a este reclamo.\n\r\n\nFinalmente, hay que destacar que según lo preceptuado en el artículo 90 de la ley 8204, si pasado el tiempo establecido en dicha norma, el bien decomisado no es reclamado por su titular, el Tribunal de instancia, en consonancia con lo que preceptúa la ley 6101 relativa a la distribución de bienes confiscados, podrá ordenar el comiso definitivo de dicho bien en favor del estado, o su destrucción según corresponda. Por lo que, en lo relativo al comiso de la motocicleta se declara sin lugar el reclamo.\n\r\n\nEn consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar el reclamo. Se revoca parcialmente el fallo, únicamente en lo concerniente al rechazo del comiso del teléfono marca Apple, estilo iPhone descrito en el acta número 244769. Por lo que de conformidad con lo preceptuado en el artículo 465 del Código Procesal Penal, los artículos 103 y 110 del Código Penal, en relación con el artículo 83 de la ley 8204, se ordena el comiso del teléfono Marca Apple, estilo iPhone, en favor del Instituto Costarricense Contra las Drogas. En caso de que dicha entidad manifiesta que ese bien no es de interés económico para los fines de la ley 8204, se ordena la destrucción de dicho bien, actuación que deberá realizar el Tribunal de Juicio, conforme con los procedimientos establecidos para esos fines. En todo lo demás, el fallo impugnado permanece incólume.\n\r\n\nIII. De la gestión formulada por el defensor Fernando Cubero Pérez. En los autos consta que el 03 de setiembre, el defensor Fernando Cubero en representación del encartado [Nombre 001], presentó gestión para que se declare en firme la sentencia condenatoria número 185-2025, debido a que la defensa no recurrió dicho fallo, y la apelación interpuesta por el Ministerio Público es solamente para lo relativo al comiso de bienes. Al respecto, es competencia del Tribunal de Juicio resolver sobre dicha pretensión.\n\r\n\nPOR TANTO\n\r\n\nSe declara parcialmente con lugar el reclamo interpuesto por el Ministerio Público. Se revoca parcialmente el fallo, únicamente en lo concerniente al rechazo del comiso del teléfono marca Apple, estilo iPhone, descrito en el acta número 244769. Por lo que de conformidad con lo preceptuado en el artículo 465 del Código Procesal Penal, artículos 103 y 110 del Código Penal en relación con el artículo 83 de la ley 8204, se ordena el comiso del teléfono Marca Apple, estilo iPhone, en favor del Instituto Costarricense Contra las Drogas. En caso de que dicha entidad manifiesta que ese bien no es de interés económico para los fines de la ley 8204, se ordena la destrucción de dicho bien, actuación que deberá realizar el Tribunal de Juicio, conforme con los procedimientos establecidos para esos fines. En todo lo demás, el fallo impugnado permanece incólume. Tome nota el Tribunal de Juicio de lo indicado en el considerando tercero de este fallo.\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\nAdriana Escalante Moncada\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\nFrancisco Lemus Víquez José Alberto Rojas Chacón \n\r\n\nJueces de Apelación de Sentencia \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\n \n\r\n\nExpediente Nº 24-001168-0061-PE\n\r\n\nContra: [Nombre 001] y otro\n\r\n\nDelito: Venta de Drogas\n\r\n\nOfendida: La Salud Pública\n\r\n\nangie", "body_en_text": "JUDICIAL BRANCH\n\nSENTENCE APPEALS COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ALAJUELA, SAN RAMÓN\n\nTel: 2456-9069 tapelacion-sra@poder-judicial.go.cr Fax: 2445-5349\n\n____________________________________________________________________________________________\n\nExp: 24-001168-0061-PE\n\nRes: 2025-00963\n\nSENTENCE APPEALS COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ALAJUELA, FIRST SECTION. San Ramón, at fourteen hours forty-one minutes on the eighth of October of two thousand twenty-five.\n\nSENTENCE APPEAL filed in the present case against [Name 001], Costa Rican, identity card number [Value 001] and [Name 002], Costa Rican, identity card number [Value 002], for the crime of VIOLATION OF THE PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES LAW, to the detriment of PUBLIC HEALTH. Participating in the decision on the appeal are judges Adriana Escalante Moncada, José Alberto Rojas Chacón, and Francisco Lemus Víquez. Appearing in the sentence appeal is licensed attorney Patricia María Núñez Alvarado, as representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público).\n\nWHEREAS:\n\n1.- That by judgment number 185-P-2025 at thirteen hundred hours on the second of June of two thousand twenty-five, the Trial Court of Heredia resolved: \"THEREFORE: In accordance with the reasoning set forth and articles 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution; 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 8, second paragraph, of the American Convention on Human Rights; 1, 4, 16, 18 to 20, 30, 45, 50, 51, 110 of the Penal Code; 1, 45, 47, 130, 141 to 145, 265 to 269, 360, 361, 363 to 365, 367, 373 to 375 of the Criminal Procedure Code; 58 of Law No. 8204 Law on Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, Drugs of Unauthorized Use, and Related Activities, Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, [Name 001] and [Name 002] are declared co-perpetrators responsible for one crime of Violation of the Psychotropic Substances Law, in its modality of possession, transport, and sale of drugs, to the detriment of Public Health, and by virtue of the application of the Expedited Procedure (Procedimiento abreviado) they are each sentenced to NINE YEARS OF PRISON and EIGHT YEARS OF PRISON, respectively, sentences to be served in the place and manner determined by the respective penitentiary regulations, after deducting the time served in pretrial detention. In order to guarantee compliance with the sanction imposed, the pretrial detention of the defendants is extended for a term of SIX more months from its expiration date, from June 15, 2025, until December 15, 2025, a sufficient period for the judgment to become final. It is resolved without special ruling on costs, with the defendant [Name 001] assuming the fees of his private defense. The expenses of the process shall be borne by the State. Once this judgment becomes final, the customary communications shall be sent to the National Institute of Criminology of the General Directorate of Social Adaptation, the Sentence Enforcement Court (Juzgado de Ejecución de la Pena), and the Judicial Registry of Offenders. In accordance with article 110 of the Penal Code, as well as articles 83 and 87 of Law 8204, the forfeiture (comiso) is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Institute on Drugs of the money seized in seizure records 0244772 and 0229020, which corresponds to that described in the deposits visible on folios 243 and 285 of volume I. The forfeiture (comiso) is ordered and the destruction is authorized of the telephones and their respective SIM cards, seized under Records 0244770 and 0244772, which correspond to a Samsung brand cellular phone, blue color, without visible IMEI, one Kolbi brand SIM card number 8950601092321395307 with a blue case, and one AZUMI brand cellular phone, black color, IMEI 353558480141308, SIM card 8950601092321074101 Kolbi brand. The forfeiture (comiso) is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Institute on Drugs, of the vehicle brand Hyundai, year 2013, VIN series number KMHJV81VBDVS44477, license plate [Value 003]. As no link whatsoever has been demonstrated between the object and the cause under investigation, the return is ordered of the Apple brand cellular phone, iPhone style, gray color, to whoever proves to be its legitimate owner, for which a period of 3 months is granted; otherwise, its forfeiture (comiso) and destruction are ordered. The return is ordered of the Formula brand motorcycle, red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XF2050, year 2024, to its registered owner, for which a period of 3 months is granted; otherwise, its forfeiture (comiso) and destruction are ordered. In accordance with circular 293-2023 of the Superior Council, the sentenced individuals are informed that in the sentence enforcement stage they may make use of the public defender's services, and they must therefore inform the competent Sentence Enforcement Court (Juzgado de Ejecución de la Pena). Notify. Vanessa Ledezma Solórzano. Trial Judge\".\n\n2.- That against the preceding ruling, licensed attorney Patricia María Núñez Alvarado, has filed a sentence appeal.\n\n3.- That having completed the respective deliberation, in accordance with the provisions of article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sentence Appeals Court of the III Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Ramón, proceeded to hear the appeal.\n\n4.- That the pertinent legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings.\n\nDrafted by Sentence Appeals Judge Escalante Moncada; and,\n\nCONSIDERING:\n\nI. Prosecutor Patricia María Núñez Alvarado files a sentence appeal against the expedited judgment number 185-2025 at thirteen hundred hours on the second of June of two thousand twenty-five. In the sole ground for appeal, she invokes erroneous application of articles 103 and 110 of the Penal Code and articles 83 and 87 of Law 8204. She holds that, unjustifiably, the forfeiture (comiso) requested by the prosecuting entity was rejected for the following goods: a Formula brand motorcycle, model XRF250, mountain type, red color, which appears registrally in the name of a third party; however, it is recorded in the file that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) at the proper procedural stage gave a hearing to the third party of good faith and the same did not appear. Regarding this good, she holds that the Trial Court did not express any legal basis for denying said petition, nor did it detail the logical, legal, and evidentiary reasoning by which said conclusion was reached. In relation to the iPhone cellular device, she details that the police reports highlighted that this object was in the possession of the accused and it is demonstrated that this was the means he used to negotiate the drug. She considers that the lower court's decision to reject the forfeiture (comiso) lacks adequate intellectual and descriptive reasoning. Additionally, she details that, in the negotiation of the expedited procedure, the parties agreed with the request for forfeiture (comiso) made by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público). She requests that the judgment be annulled solely in this respect and that, for procedural economy at the appellate level, the forfeiture (comiso) be ordered of the Apple brand cellular phone, iPhone style, gray color, and the Formula brand motorcycle, red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XF2050, year 2024.\n\nII. The appeal is partially granted. Having examined the arguments of the appeal, evaluated the judgment, and reviewed the case records, it is concluded that the appellant is partially correct, as explained below.\n\nIt is easily deduced that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) presents its objection because the sentence of the expedited procedure did not order the forfeiture (comiso) of two goods, namely, an Apple brand cellular phone, iPhone style, and the Cyclone style motorcycle, model XF2050, year 2024. To support the denial of the forfeiture (comiso) for these goods, the judge in the sentence stated the following:\n\n\"As no link whatsoever has been demonstrated between the object and the cause under investigation, the return is ordered of the Apple brand cellular phone, iPhone style, gray color, to whoever proves to be its legitimate owner, for which a period of 3 months is granted; otherwise, its forfeiture (comiso) and destruction are ordered. The return is ordered of the Formula brand motorcycle, red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XF2050, year 2024, to its registered owner\"\n\nAs can be seen, the essential reason for denying the forfeiture (comiso) of those goods is that the lower Court considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the link of said objects to the act judged in this matter.\n\nThis argument would be valid when there is no evidence demonstrating that a good or object has been used as an instrument for the commission of a crime. Conversely, when there is evidence demonstrating that the good has been used for the commission of a crime, the judge must analyze the propriety of ordering the forfeiture (comiso), according to other provisions established by the legislator, regarding respect for the rights of third parties. Furthermore, when the object to be seized is a good belonging to a third-party acquirer in good faith, the forfeiture (comiso) is appropriate when there is evidence demonstrating that the registral owner of said good has facilitated or consented (tacitly or expressly) to the use of said good for the commission of a criminal act. Regarding this topic concerning goods registered in the name of third parties, the Criminal Cassation Chamber has stated the following:\n\n\"It has been the criterion of this Chamber that in matters of forfeiture (comiso) of goods, judges must be very cautious and zealous when adopting such a decision, since it could affect not only the rights and guarantees of the accused but also the interests of third parties not involved in the process. Thus, in this type of matter, to define the absolute and definitive deprivation of a good, it is necessary -first- to determine with certainty that it originates from drug trafficking, or else, is used in said activity, and -second- it must be established who the owner(s) of those goods are, in order to determine their relationship with the criminal act, so that only if they have been used in drug trafficking by their owners or with the tacit or direct acceptance of these, can the forfeiture (comiso) be ordered. For such purposes, furthermore, the owners of the goods susceptible to being confiscated must be considered parties in the process, so as not to affect the rights of all those persons who have no relation to the illicit activity. More probability or presumption in that regard is not sufficient, therefore, but certainty is required, since if the possibility of forfeiture (comiso) based on probabilities or presumptions were accepted, we would be violating the principles that inform due process, such as: the principle of legality, of innocence, of defense, of fair trial, of culpability, etc.\" (Criminal Cassation Chamber number 01291 – 2013)\n\nReturning to the case under study, it is found that regarding the Apple brand telephone, iPhone style, the assertion of the lower Court indicating that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Apple telephone was used to carry out the criminal activity is incorrect.\n\nThis is so because, upon reviewing the case records, it is found that the cell line number [Value 005] and the iPhone telephone are centrally mentioned in Police Report No. 398-RCI-DPP-2024 and its amplifications. The cited report identifies the telephone service number [Value 004] as the number that was provided to the undercover agent (identified as \"[Name 003]\") to contact and negotiate with the suspect [Name 001]. Furthermore, an inquiry was made to ICE, where it was indicated that the telephone service number [Value 004] is in the name of the defendant, [Name 001]. Likewise, it was verified through the SINPE application that the number [Value 004] is linked to an account at the National Bank of Costa Rica in the name of the defendant. Later, in the amplification of police report 398-RCI-DRP-2024 dated June 2024, it is mentioned that at the time of [Name 001]'s arrest, an Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, gray color, with a cracked front and back screen, with a black case, was seized from him, an action documented under record number 244769. Likewise, judicial agents, on June 15, 2024, executed the telephone possession test, where a call was made to number [Value 005] from number [Value 006], obtaining a positive result with the Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, seized from the defendant on the day of his arrest. Finally, that report details that cell line [Value 004] was used by [Name 001] to communicate with the undercover agent and coordinate the sale of the drugs.\n\nFrom this evidence, it clearly emerges that, with regard to the Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, which holds cell line [Value 005], there is indeed evidence that allows sustaining with the required certainty that said mobile device was used for criminal activity by the defendant [Name 001]; likewise, there is sufficient evidence that allows sustaining that said good is the property of the accused [Name 001]. Therefore, based on the evidence, and according to the provisions of article 110 of the Penal Code and article 83 of Law 8204, the forfeiture (comiso) and destruction are ordered of the Apple brand telephone, iPhone style, seized under record number 244769.\n\nRegarding the motorcycle plate Formula brand motorcycle, license plate [Value 007], red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XRF250, year 2024, seized under record number 0196170, the prosecution is not correct. As indicated earlier, when seized goods belong to third parties, apart from the use of the good in the criminal activity, it must be demonstrated that the owner participated in the criminal action, or that they lent the goods to be used for that purpose, or that there is evidence demonstrating that, expressly or tacitly, the owner knew the purpose for which said good would be used. In this matter, and according to the evidence, especially police report No. 398-RCI-DPP-2024, the referenced motorcycle is linked to the event that occurred on June 15, 2024, an occasion on which the accused [Name 001] and [Name 002] transported themselves on said motorcycle to the site where the drug sale to the undercover agent was made, and later left said sector using said means of transport, and were finally detained by the judicial agents. While the use of said motorcycle in the criminal activity is not a disputed fact, there is insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that the owner of said motorcycle, namely, [Name 005], is involved in said criminal activity, or that he gave his tacit or express consent for that good to be used for the execution of said illicit activity. Even though it is recorded in the case file that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) gave a hearing to [Name 005] regarding the seizure of the good, and to date he has not filed any action to claim ownership of said good, that omission by the registered owner is not a sufficient indication to reasonably conclude that he lent the motorcycle to the defendants for the purpose of it being used for a criminal act. Note that this motorcycle was used only on one occasion, namely, June 15, 2024. Furthermore, the reports do not describe any participation by [Name 005] in either of the two events that occurred, on June 1 or June 15, except for the use of his motorcycle in the latter event. Moreover, it must be remembered that according to the provisions of articles 83 and following of Law 8204, and especially article 94, it is incumbent upon the prosecuting entity to demonstrate the participation of the third party or the third party's knowledge of the facts, since the burden of proof falls on whoever seeks the seizure of a good. Finally, it must be highlighted that there is a presumption in accordance with article 455 of the Civil Code, as well as based on article 21 of the Civil Code and article 2 of the Commercial Code, that good faith is presumed in the conduct of business, and rather, there must be evidence to overturn that presumption, and in this case, the omission of the registered owner to appear in the process does not constitute sufficient evidence to overturn that legal presumption.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be highlighted that it is verified that in this matter, and as recorded on folio 547 of Volume I, the Costa Rican Institute Against Drugs (Instituto Costarricense Contra Drogas), as prescribed in article 83 of Law 8204, performed an economic valuation of the seized motorcycle and indicated that for the purposes established in said norm, said good lacks economic value due to the poor condition the seized motorcycle is in, and that in that sense they have no interest in said good, so the lack of grievance regarding this claim is also verified.\n\nFinally, it must be highlighted that according to the provisions of article 90 of Law 8204, if after the time established in said norm has passed, the seized good is not claimed by its owner, the lower Court, consistent with what Law 6101 prescribes regarding the distribution of confiscated goods, may order the definitive forfeiture (comiso) of said good in favor of the state, or its destruction, as applicable. Therefore, regarding the forfeiture (comiso) of the motorcycle, the claim is declared without merit.\n\nConsequently, the appeal claim is partially granted. The judgment is partially revoked, solely regarding the rejection of the forfeiture (comiso) of the Apple brand telephone, iPhone style, described in record number 244769. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, articles 103 and 110 of the Penal Code, in relation to article 83 of Law 8204, the forfeiture (comiso) of the Apple brand telephone, iPhone style, is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Institute Against Drugs (Instituto Costarricense Contra las Drogas). In the event that said entity states that this good is not of economic interest for the purposes of Law 8204, the destruction of said good is ordered, an action that the Trial Court must perform in accordance with the procedures established for these purposes. In all other respects, the contested judgment remains intact.\n\nIII. Regarding the motion filed by defense attorney Fernando Cubero Pérez. The case records show that on September 3, defense attorney Fernando Cubero, representing the defendant [Name 001], filed a motion requesting that the condemnatory judgment number 185-2025 be declared final because the defense did not appeal said judgment, and the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) pertains only to the forfeiture (comiso) of goods. In this regard, it is the competence of the Trial Court to rule on said petition.\n\nTHEREFORE\n\nThe appeal claim filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) is partially granted. The judgment is partially revoked, solely regarding the rejection of the forfeiture (comiso) of the Apple brand telephone, iPhone style, described in record number 244769. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, articles 103 and 110 of the Penal Code, in relation to article 83 of Law 8204, the forfeiture (comiso) of the Apple brand telephone, iPhone style, is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Institute Against Drugs (Instituto Costarricense Contra las Drogas). In the event that said entity states that this good is not of economic interest for the purposes of Law 8204, the destruction of said good is ordered, an action that the Trial Court must perform in accordance with the procedures established for these purposes. In all other respects, the contested judgment remains intact.\n\nLet the Trial Court take note of what is indicated in the third considering clause of this ruling.\n\nAdriana Escalante Moncada\n\nFrancisco Lemus Víquez José Alberto Rojas Chacón\nSentence Appeals Judges\n\nCase File No. 24-001168-0061-PE\nAgainst: [Nombre 001] and another\nCrime: Drug Sales\nVictim: Public Health\nangie\n\nThe return of the motorcycle, brand Fórmula, red, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XF2050, year 2024, to its registered owner is ordered.\"\n\nAs can be seen, the essential reason for denying the confiscation of those goods is that the trial court considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the connection of said objects to the act adjudicated in this matter.\n\nThis argument would be valid when there is no evidence demonstrating that a good or object has been used as an instrument for the commission of a crime. Conversely (A contrario sensu), when evidence exists demonstrating that the good has been used for the commission of a crime, the judge must analyze the appropriateness of ordering confiscation, according to other provisions established by the legislature, regarding respect for the rights of third parties. Furthermore, when the object to be confiscated is a good belonging to a third-party acquirer in good faith, confiscation is appropriate when there is evidence demonstrating that the registered titleholder of said good has facilitated or consented (tacitly or expressly) to the use of said good for the commission of a criminal act. On this topic relating to goods registered in the name of third parties, the Criminal Cassation Chamber (Sala de Casación Penal) has indicated the following:\n\n\"It has been the criterion of this Chamber that, in the case of the confiscation (comiso) of goods, judges must be very cautious and zealous when adopting such a decision, since this could affect not only the rights and guarantees of the accused, but also the interests of third parties unrelated to the process. Thus, in this type of matter, to define the absolute and definitive deprivation of a good, it must be —firstly— determined with certainty that it comes from drug trafficking, or that it is used in said activity, and —secondly— it must be established who is or are the owners of those goods, to determine their relationship with the criminal act, since only if they have been used in drug trafficking by their owners or with the tacit or direct acceptance of these, could confiscation be ordered. For such purposes, moreover, the owners of the goods susceptible to being confiscated must be considered as parties in the process, in order not to affect the rights of all those persons who have no relationship with the illicit act. Mere probability or presumption in this regard is not enough, therefore, but certainty is required, since to accept the possibility of confiscation based on probabilities or presumptions would be to violate the principles that inform due process, such as: the principle of legality, of innocence, of defense, of fair trial, of culpability, etc.\" (Criminal Cassation Chamber number 01291 – 2013)\n\nReturning to the case under study, regarding the telephone, brand Apple, iPhone style, the trial court's statement indicating that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Apple telephone was used to carry out the criminal activity is incorrect.\n\nThis is so because, upon reviewing the case file, it is found that the cell phone line number [Valor 005] and the iPhone telephone are centrally mentioned in Police Report No. 398-RCI-DPP-2024 and its amplifications. In the cited report, telephone service number [Valor 004] is identified as the number that was provided to the undercover agent (identified as \"[Nombre 003]\") to contact and negotiate with the suspect [Nombre 001]. Additionally, a query was made to ICE, where it was indicated that telephone service number [Valor 004] is in the name of the accused, [Nombre 001]. Likewise, it was verified through the SINPE application that number [Valor 004] is linked to an account at the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica in the name of the accused. Then, in the amplification of police report 398-RCI-DRP-2024 dated June 2024, it is mentioned that at the time of the arrest of [Nombre 001], a cell phone, brand Apple, iPhone style, gray color, with a broken front and rear screen, with a black case, was seized from him, an action that is documented with report number 244769. Likewise, judicial agents, on June 15, 2024, executed the telephone possession test, where a call was made to number [Valor 005] from number [Valor 006], obtaining a positive result with the cell phone, brand Apple, iPhone style, seized from the defendant on the day of his arrest. Finally, in that report, it is detailed that cell line [Valor 004] was used by [Nombre 001] to communicate with the undercover agent and coordinate the sale of the drug.\n\nFrom this evidence, it clearly follows that, regarding the cell phone, brand Apple, iPhone style, which holds cell line [Valor 005], there is indeed evidence that allows maintaining with the required certainty that said mobile device was used for criminal activity, by the defendant [Nombre 001]; likewise, there is sufficient evidence that allows maintaining that said good is the property of the accused [Nombre 001]. Therefore, based on the evidence, and pursuant to Article 110 of the Penal Code (Código Penal) and Article 83 of Law 8204 (Ley 8204), the confiscation and destruction of the telephone, brand Apple, iPhone style, seized via report number 244769, is ordered.\n\nRegarding the motorcycle, Formula brand, license plate [Valor 007], red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XRF250, year 2024, seized via report number 0196170, the prosecution's argument lacks merit. As indicated earlier, when the seized goods belong to third parties, apart from the use of the good in the criminal activity, it must be demonstrated that the owner participated in the criminal action, or that they lent the goods to be used for that purpose, or that there is evidence demonstrating expressly or tacitly that the owner knew the purpose for which said good would be used. In this matter, and according to the evidence, especially police report No. 398-RCI-DPP-2024, the referred motorcycle is linked to the event that occurred on June 15, 2024, an occasion on which the defendants [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 002] transported themselves on said motorcycle to the site where the drug sale was made to the undercover agent and afterward left said area using said means of transport, and were finally arrested by judicial agents. While the use of said motorcycle in the criminal activity is not a contested fact, there is insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that the owner of said motorcycle, namely, [Nombre 005], is involved in said criminal activity, or that they gave their tacit or express consent for that good to be used for the execution of said illicit activity. Although it is on record that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) gave [Nombre 005] a hearing regarding the seizure of the good, and to date they have not filed any action to claim ownership of said good, that omission on the part of the registered owner is not a sufficient indication to reasonably conclude that they lent the motorcycle to the defendants with the aim of it being used for a criminal act. Note that this motorcycle was used only on one occasion, namely, June 15, 2024. Furthermore, the reports do not describe any participation by [Nombre 005] in either of the two events that occurred, on June 1 or June 15, except for the use of their motorcycle in this last event. Additionally, it must be remembered that according to Articles 83 and following of Law 8204, and especially Article 94, it is the responsibility of the prosecuting entity to demonstrate the participation of the third party or their knowledge of the acts, since the burden of proof falls on whoever seeks the confiscation of a good. Finally, it must be highlighted that there is a presumption in accordance with Article 455 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), as well as based on Article 21 of the Civil Code and Article 2 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio), that good faith is presumed in the conduct of business, and rather, there must be evidence that overthrows said presumption, and in this case, the registered owner's omission to appear in the process does not constitute sufficient evidence to overturn that legal presumption.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be highlighted that it is verified, in this matter, and as recorded on folio 547 of Volume I, that the Costa Rican Drug Institute (Instituto Costarricense Contra Drogas), according to the provisions of Article 83 of Law 8204, carried out an economic valuation of the seized motorcycle, and indicated that for the purposes established in said regulation, said good lacks economic value, due to the poor condition in which the seized motorcycle is found, and that in that sense they have no interest in said good, so the lack of grievance regarding this claim is also verified.\n\nFinally, it must be highlighted that according to the provisions of Article 90 of Law 8204, if after the time established in said norm has passed, the seized good is not claimed by its owner, the trial court, in accordance with the provisions of Law 6101 relating to the distribution of confiscated goods, may order the definitive confiscation of said good in favor of the state, or its destruction as appropriate. Therefore, regarding the confiscation of the motorcycle, the claim is declared without merit.\n\nConsequently, the claim is partially granted. The judgment is partially revoked, solely regarding the denial of the confiscation of the telephone, brand Apple, iPhone style, described in report number 244769. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), Articles 103 and 110 of the Penal Code, in relation to Article 83 of Law 8204, the confiscation of the telephone, Brand Apple, iPhone style, is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Drug Institute. In the event that said entity states that this good is of no economic interest for the purposes of Law 8204, the destruction of said good is ordered, an action that the Trial Court must carry out, in accordance with the procedures established for those purposes. In all other respects, the appealed judgment remains unaltered.\n\nIII. **Of the action filed by defense attorney Fernando Cubero Pérez.** In the case file, it is recorded that on September 3, defense attorney Fernando Cubero, representing the defendant [Nombre 001], filed an action for condemnatory judgment number 185-2025 to be declared final, because the defense did not appeal said judgment, and the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office is only regarding the confiscation of goods. In this regard, it is the competence of the Trial Court to resolve this request.\n\n**THEREFORE**\n\nThe claim filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office is partially granted. The judgment is partially revoked, solely regarding the denial of the confiscation of the telephone, brand Apple, iPhone style, described in report number 244769. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Articles 103 and 110 of the Penal Code in relation to Article 83 of Law 8204, the confiscation of the telephone, Brand Apple, iPhone style, is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Drug Institute. In the event that said entity states that this good is of no economic interest for the purposes of Law 8204, the destruction of said good is ordered, an action that the Trial Court must carry out, in accordance with the procedures established for those purposes. In all other respects, the appealed judgment remains unaltered.\n\nThe Trial Court shall take note of what is indicated in the third considerando of this judgment.

\n\nAdriana Escalante Moncada\n\nFrancisco Lemus Víquez José Alberto Rojas Chacón \nAppeals Judges \nExpediente No. 24-001168-0061-PE\nAgainst: [Name 001] and another\nCrime: Drug Trafficking\nVictim: Public Health\nangie\n\nUpon the finalization of this judgment, the corresponding official communications shall be sent to the National Institute of Criminology (Instituto Nacional de Criminología) of the General Directorate of Social Adaptation (Dirección General de Adaptación Social), the Sentence Enforcement Court (Juzgado de Ejecución de la Pena), and the Judicial Registry of Offenders (Registro Judicial de Delincuentes). In accordance with Article 110 of the Penal Code (Código Penal), as well as Articles 83 and 87 of Ley 8204, the confiscation (comiso) of the money seized in seizure reports 0244772 and 0229020, which corresponds to the deposits visible on pages 243 and 285 of volume I, is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Drug Institute (Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas). The confiscation (comiso) is ordered and the destruction is authorized of the telephones and their respective SIM cards, seized under Reports 0244770 and 0244772, which correspond to a Samsung brand cell phone, blue color, with no visible IMEI, a Kolbi brand SIM card number 8950601092321395307 with a blue case, and an AZUMI brand cell phone, black color, IMEI 353558480141308, Kolbi brand SIM card 8950601092321074101. The confiscation (comiso) of the Hyundai brand vehicle, year 2013, VIN series number KMHJV81VBDVS44477, license plate [Valor 003], is ordered in favor of the Costa Rican Drug Institute (Instituto Costarricense sobre Drogas). As no connection has been demonstrated between the object and the investigated case, the return of the Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, gray color, is ordered to whomever proves to be its legitimate owner, for which a period of 3 months is granted; otherwise, its confiscation (comiso) and destruction are ordered. The return of the Formula brand motorcycle, red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XF2050, year 2024, is ordered to its registered owner, for which a period of 3 months is granted; otherwise, its confiscation (comiso) and destruction are ordered. In accordance with Circular 293-2023 of the Superior Council (Consejo Superior), the convicts are informed that during the sentence enforcement stage, they may use the services of the public defense, for which they must inform the competent Sentence Enforcement Court (Juzgado de Ejecución de la Pena). Notify. Vanessa Ledezma Solórzano. Trial Judge (Jueza de Juicio).\"\n\n2.- That against the preceding ruling, Attorney Patricia María Núñez Alvarado has filed an appeal of the sentence.\n\n3.- That after the respective deliberation, in accordance with Article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), the Sentence Appeals Court (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia) of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Ramón, proceeded to hear the appeal.\n\n4.- That the pertinent legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings.\n\nDrafted by the Sentence Appeals Judge (Jueza de Apelación de Sentencia) Escalante Moncada; and,\n\nCONSIDERING:\n\nI. Prosecutor Patricia María Núñez Alvarado files an appeal against the abbreviated sentence (sentencia abreviada) number 185-2025 of thirteen hundred hours on June second, two thousand twenty-five. In the sole ground, she invokes an erroneous application of Articles 103 and 110 of the Penal Code (Código Penal) and Articles 83 and 87 of Ley 8204. She argues that the confiscation (comiso) requested by the prosecuting entity was unjustifiably rejected for the following assets: a Formula brand motorcycle, model XRF250, mountain type, red color, which registrally appears in the name of a third party; however, the case file shows that the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público), at the proper procedural moment, gave a hearing to the good faith third party, and that party did not appear. Regarding this asset, she argues that the Trial Court did not express a legal basis to deny said claim, nor did it detail what logical, legal, and evidentiary reasoning led to this conclusion. In relation to the iPhone cell phone device, she details that the police reports highlighted that this object was in the possession of the accused and it is demonstrated that this was the means he used to negotiate the drug. She considers that the lower court's decision to reject the confiscation (comiso) lacks adequate intellective and descriptive reasoning. Furthermore, she details that, in the negotiation of the abbreviated procedure, the parties agreed with the confiscation (comiso) request made by the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público). She requests that the judgment be annulled only on this point and that, for procedural economy on appeal, the confiscation (comiso) be ordered of the Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, gray color, and the Formula brand motorcycle, red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XF2050, year 2024,\n\nII. The appeal is partially granted. Upon examining the appeal arguments, evaluating the sentence, and reviewing the case file records, it is concluded that the appellant is partially correct, as explained below.\n\nIt is easily deduced that the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público) raises its objection because the sentence from the abbreviated procedure did not order the confiscation (comiso) of two assets, namely, an Apple brand iPhone style cell phone, and the Cyclone style motorcycle, model XF2050, year 2024. To justify the denial of the confiscation (comiso) of these assets, the judge stated the following in the sentence:\n\n\"As no connection has been demonstrated between the object and the investigated case, the return of the Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, gray color, is ordered to whomever proves to be its legitimate owner, for which a period of 3 months is granted; otherwise, its confiscation (comiso) and destruction are ordered. The return of the Formula brand motorcycle, red color, mountain type, Cyclone style, model XF2050, year 2024, is ordered to its registered owner.\"\n\nAs can be seen, the essential reason for denying the confiscation (comiso) of those assets is that the lower Court considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the connection of said objects to the act judged in this matter.\n\nThis argument would be valid when there is no evidence to demonstrate that an asset or object has been used as an instrument for the commission of a crime. A contrario sensu, when there is evidence demonstrating that the asset has been used for the commission of a crime, the judge must analyze the appropriateness of ordering the confiscation (comiso), according to other provisions established by the legislator, regarding respect for the rights of third parties. Furthermore, when the object to be seized is an asset belonging to a good faith third-party acquirer, the confiscation (comiso) is appropriate when there is evidence demonstrating that the registered owner of said asset has facilitated or consented (tacitly or expressly) to the use of said asset for the commission of a criminal act. On this topic concerning assets registered in the name of third parties, the Criminal Cassation Chamber (Sala de Casación Penal) has indicated the following:\n\n\"It has been the criterion of this Chamber that, in the case of the confiscation (comiso) of assets, judges must be very cautious and zealous when adopting such a decision, since it could affect not only the rights and guarantees of the accused but also the interests of third parties unrelated to the process. Thus, in this type of matter, to define the absolute and definitive deprivation of an asset, it must be determined with certainty - first - that the same originates from drug trafficking, or is used in that activity, and - secondly - it must be established who the owners of those assets are, to determine their relationship with the criminal act, and only if they have been used in drug trafficking by their owners or with the tacit or direct acceptance of these, could the confiscation (comiso) be ordered. For these purposes, the owners of the assets susceptible to being confiscated must also be considered parties in the process, so as not to affect the rights of all those persons who have no connection with the illicit act. Mere probability or presumption in this regard is therefore insufficient; rather, certainty is required, because accepting the possibility of confiscation (comiso) based on probabilities or presumptions would violate the principles informing due process, such as: the principle of legality, innocence, defense, fair trial, culpability, etc.\" (Criminal Cassation Chamber (Sala de Casación Penal) number 01291 – 2013)\n\nReturning to the case under study, regarding the Apple brand iPhone-style telephone, the lower Court's statement indicating that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Apple phone was used to carry out the criminal activity is incorrect.\n\nThis is so because, upon reviewing the case file records, it is found that the cell phone line number [Valor 005] and the iPhone telephone are centrally mentioned in Police Report No. 398-RCI-DPP-2024 and its addenda. In that report, the telephone service number [Valor 004] is identified as the number given to the undercover agent (identified as \"[Nombre 003]\") to contact and negotiate with the suspect [Nombre 001]. Furthermore, a consultation was made to ICE, where it was indicated that the telephone service number [Valor 004] is in the name of the accused, [Nombre 001]. Likewise, it was verified through the SINPE application that the number [Valor 004] is linked to an account at the National Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Nacional de Costa Rica) in the name of the accused. Then, in the addendum to police report 398-RCI-DRP-2024 dated June 2024, it is mentioned that at the time of [Nombre 001]'s arrest, an Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, gray color, with a broken front and rear screen, with a black case, was seized from him, an action documented with report number 244769. Likewise, on June 15, 2024, the judicial agents executed the telephone possession test, where a call was made to number [Valor 005] from number [Valor 006], obtaining a positive result with the Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, seized from the defendant on the day of his arrest. Finally, this report details that the cell line [Valor 004] was used by [Nombre 001] to communicate with the undercover agent and coordinate the drug sale.\n\nFrom this evidence, it is clearly apparent that, regarding the Apple brand, iPhone style cellular phone, which holds the cellular line [Valor 005], there is indeed evidence that allows it to be sustained with the required certainty that said mobile device was used for the criminal activity by the accused [Nombre 001]. Likewise, there is sufficient evidence to sustain that said asset is the property of the accused [Nombre 001]. Therefore, based on the evidence, and according to the provisions of article 110 of the Código Penal and article 83 of the Ley 8204, the confiscation (comiso) and destruction of the Apple brand, iPhone style telephone seized under official report número 244769 is ordered.\n\nRegarding the Formula brand motorcycle, license plate [Valor 007], red color, montanera type, cyclone style, model XRF250, year 2024, seized under official report número 0196170, the prosecution's argument is unfounded. As indicated above, when seized assets belong to third parties, apart from the use of the asset in the criminal activity, it must be demonstrated that the owner participated in the criminal action, or that they provided the assets to be used for that purpose, or that there is evidence demonstrating that, expressly or tacitly, the owner knew the purpose for which said asset would be used. In this matter, and according to the evidence, especially police report N° 398-RCI-DPP-2024, the referenced motorcycle is linked to the event that occurred on June 15, 2024, on which occasion the accused [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 002] transported themselves on said motorcycle to the site where the drug sale to the undercover agent was made, and afterward they left said sector using said means of transport, and were finally detained by the judicial agents. While the use of said motorcycle in the criminal activity is not a disputed fact, what there is insufficient evidence for is reaching the conclusion that the owner of said motorcycle, namely, [Nombre 005], is involved in said criminal activity, or that they gave their tacit or express consent for that asset to be used for the execution of said illicit activity. Although the case file shows that the Ministerio Público granted a hearing to [Nombre 005] regarding the seizure of the asset, and to date he has not filed any action to claim ownership of said asset, that omission on the part of the registered owner is not a sufficient indication to reasonably conclude that he provided the motorcycle to the accused for the purpose of it being used for a criminal act. It should be noted that this motorcycle was used only once, namely, on June 15, 2024. Furthermore, the reports do not describe any participation by [Nombre 005] in either of the two events that occurred, on June 1 or June 15, except for the use of his motorcycle in this last event. Moreover, it must be remembered that according to the provisions of articles 83 and following of the Ley 8204, and especially article 94, it falls to the prosecuting entity to demonstrate the participation of the third party or their knowledge of the facts, as the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) lies with whoever seeks the confiscation of an asset. Finally, it must be highlighted that there is a presumption, in accordance with article 455 of the Código Civil, as well as based on article 21 of the Código Civil and article 2 of the Código de Comercio, that good faith is presumed in the conduct of business, and rather, there must be evidence to demolish that presumption, and in this case, the registered owner's omission to appear in the proceeding does not constitute sufficient evidence to overturn that legal presumption.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be highlighted that it is verified that, in this matter, and as recorded on folio 547 of Volume I, the Instituto Costarricense Contra Drogas, according to the provisions of article 83 of the ley 8204, performed an economic valuation of the seized motorcycle, and indicated that for the purposes established in said regulation, said asset lacks economic value due to the poor condition the seized motorcycle is in, and that in this regard they have no interest in said asset, so the lack of grievance regarding this claim is also verified.\n\nFinally, it must be highlighted that according to the provisions of article 90 of the ley 8204, if after the time established in said norm, the seized asset is not claimed by its owner, the Trial Court (Tribunal de instancia), in accordance with the provisions of la ley 6101 regarding the distribution of confiscated assets, may order the definitive confiscation (comiso) of said asset in favor of the state, or its destruction as applicable. Therefore, regarding the confiscation of the motorcycle, the claim is declared without merit.\n\nConsequently, the claim is partially granted. The judgment is partially reversed, only regarding the denial of the confiscation of the Apple brand, iPhone style telephone described in official report número 244769. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 465 of the Código Procesal Penal, articles 103 and 110 of the Código Penal, in relation to article 83 of the ley 8204, the confiscation of the Apple Brand, iPhone style telephone in favor of the Instituto Costarricense Contra las Drogas is ordered. In the event that said entity manifests that this asset is not of economic interest for the purposes of the ley 8204, the destruction of said asset is ordered, an action which the Trial Court (Tribunal de Juicio) must carry out, in accordance with the procedures established for those purposes. In all other respects, the appealed judgment remains unaltered.\n\nIII. **Of the action filed by defense attorney Fernando Cubero Pérez.** The case file shows that on September 3, defense attorney Fernando Cubero, representing the accused [Nombre 001], filed an action seeking to have the condemnatory judgment número 185-2025 declared final, because the defense did not appeal said judgment, and the appeal filed by the Ministerio Público is only regarding the confiscation of assets. In this regard, it is the competence of the Trial Court (Tribunal de Juicio) to resolve said petition.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe claim filed by the Ministerio Público is partially granted. The judgment is partially reversed, only regarding the denial of the confiscation of the Apple brand, iPhone style telephone described in official report número 244769. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 465 of the Código Procesal Penal, articles 103 and 110 of the Código Penal in relation to article 83 of the ley 8204, the confiscation of the Apple Brand, iPhone style telephone in favor of the Instituto Costarricense Contra las Drogas is ordered. In the event that said entity manifests that this asset is not of economic interest for the purposes of the ley 8204, the destruction of said asset is ordered, an action which the Trial Court (Tribunal de Juicio) must carry out, in accordance with the procedures established for those purposes. In all other respects, the appealed judgment remains unaltered. The Trial Court (Tribunal de Juicio) shall take note of what is indicated in the third considerando of this ruling.\n\n\n\n\n\n**Adriana Escalante Moncada**\n\n\n\n\n\n**Francisco Lemus Víquez** **José Alberto Rojas Chacón**\n\n**Judges of Sentence Appeals**\n\n**Expediente Nº 24-001168-0061-PE**\n**Contra: [Nombre 001] y otro**\n**Delito: Venta de Drogas**\n**Ofendida: La Salud Pública**\n**angie**" }