{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-295550", "citation": "", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Fallo sobre infracción forestal en área silvestre protegida", "title_en": "Ruling on forestry violation in protected wilderness area", "summary_es": "La sentencia resuelve un recurso de casación interpuesto contra una condena por infracción a la Ley Forestal en un área silvestre protegida. El Tribunal de Apelación confirma la condena impuesta por el Tribunal de Juicio, determinando que el imputado taló árboles sin autorización dentro de un área de conservación. La defensa alegó falta de tipicidad y error de prohibición, argumentando que el terreno era de su propiedad y desconocía su estatus protegido. El tribunal rechaza estos argumentos, señalando que la condición de área protegida era de conocimiento público y que el artículo 58 de la Ley Forestal no exige un elemento subjetivo adicional al dolo. Se analiza la valoración de la prueba pericial y testimonial, concluyendo que la materialidad del delito y la autoría están debidamente acreditadas. Se reitera que el delito es de peligro abstracto y no requiere un daño efectivo, bastando la puesta en peligro del recurso forestal.", "summary_en": "This ruling resolves a cassation appeal against a conviction for violation of the Forestry Law in a protected wilderness area. The Appeals Court confirms the conviction imposed by the Trial Court, finding that the defendant cut trees without authorization within a conservation area. The defense alleged lack of typicity and mistake of prohibition, arguing that the land was his property and he was unaware of its protected status. The court rejects these arguments, noting that the protected area status was public knowledge and that Article 58 of the Forestry Law does not require a subjective element beyond intent. The assessment of expert and testimonial evidence is analyzed, concluding that the materiality of the crime and authorship are duly accredited. It reiterates that the crime is one of abstract danger and does not require effective harm, merely the endangerment of the forest resource.", "court_or_agency": "", "date": "", "year": "", "topic_ids": [ "criminal-environmental" ], "primary_topic_id": "criminal-environmental", "es_concept_hints": [ "área silvestre protegida", "artículo 58 Ley Forestal", "error de prohibición", "delito de peligro abstracto", "casación" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 58", "law": "Ley Forestal 7575" } ], "keywords_es": [ "Ley Forestal", "artículo 58", "área silvestre protegida", "tala ilegal", "error de prohibición", "delito de peligro abstracto", "recurso de casación" ], "keywords_en": [ "Forestry Law", "article 58", "protected wilderness area", "illegal logging", "mistake of law", "abstract danger crime", "cassation appeal" ], "excerpt_es": "En el caso concreto, el imputado realizó la tala de árboles en un área silvestre protegida, sin contar con el permiso correspondiente. Esta conducta se subsume en el tipo penal del artículo 58 de la Ley Forestal, que sanciona a quien 'tale, corte, extraiga, destruya, queme, transforme o aproveche árboles, arbustos, productos o subproductos forestales en áreas silvestres protegidas'. La defensa alegó error de prohibición, pero esta tesis no puede prosperar, pues el imputado conocía o debía conocer la condición de área protegida del terreno, dado que dicha condición es un hecho notorio y de dominio público. Además, el error de prohibición invencible no fue acreditado, pues no se demostró que el imputado hubiera realizado las gestiones necesarias para informarse adecuadamente sobre la normativa aplicable. Por tanto, se confirma la sentencia condenatoria.", "excerpt_en": "In the specific case, the defendant carried out the felling of trees in a protected wilderness area, without the corresponding permit. This conduct falls under the criminal offense of Article 58 of the Forestry Law, which punishes anyone who 'fells, cuts, extracts, destroys, burns, transforms or takes advantage of trees, bushes, forest products or by-products in protected wilderness areas'. The defense alleged mistake of law, but this argument cannot succeed, since the defendant knew or should have known the protected status of the land, given that such condition is a notorious fact and in the public domain. Furthermore, an insurmountable mistake of law was not proven, as it was not demonstrated that the defendant had taken the necessary steps to adequately inform himself about the applicable regulations. Accordingly, the conviction is upheld.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The cassation appeal is denied and the conviction for violation of Article 58 of the Forestry Law is upheld.", "summary_es": "Se declara sin lugar el recurso de casación y se confirma la condena por infracción al artículo 58 de la Ley Forestal." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando sobre la tipicidad", "quote_en": "The criminal offense under Article 58 of the Forestry Law is a crime of abstract danger, which does not require the production of concrete damage, but merely the performance of the typical conduct in a protected wilderness area.", "quote_es": "El tipo penal del artículo 58 de la Ley Forestal es un delito de peligro abstracto, que no exige la producción de un daño concreto, sino la mera realización de la conducta típica en un área silvestre protegida." }, { "context": "Considerando sobre el error de prohibición", "quote_en": "The mistake of law was not duly proven, since the defendant did not demonstrate having taken the necessary steps to learn about the regulations applicable to the land where he carried out the felling.", "quote_es": "El error de prohibición no fue debidamente acreditado, pues el imputado no demostró haber realizado las diligencias necesarias para conocer la normativa aplicable al terreno donde realizó la tala." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-514925", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "" }, { "target_id": "norm-41661", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley Forestal 7575 Art. 58" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-304167", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-304167" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-532827", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-532827" } ] }, "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": [ { "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "" }, { "doc_id": "norm-2107", "norm_num": "6734", "norm_name": "Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "29/03/1982" }, { "doc_id": "norm-28693", "norm_num": "25721", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley Forestal", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "17/10/1996" }, { "doc_id": "norm-38394", "norm_num": "4465", "norm_name": "Ley Forestal de 1969", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "25/11/1969" }, { "doc_id": "norm-5027", "norm_num": "4573", "norm_name": "Código Penal — Ley 4573", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/05/1970" }, { "doc_id": "norm-9104", "norm_num": "7174", "norm_name": "Ley Forestal 7174", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "28/06/1990" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [ "sen-1-0034-304167", "sen-1-0034-514925", "sen-1-0034-532827" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "", "body_en_text": "I cannot see the source document you are referring to. The text you provided is a JSON error message indicating that the website blocked access with a captcha challenge. It contains no Costa Rican Spanish legal text for me to translate.\n\nIf you can retrieve and paste the actual legal excerpt here, I will translate it according to your specifications." }