Heredia criminal court denies theft conviction over phone taken from repair counter

The criminal court in Heredia denied the Public Prosecutor's request to convict Andrés Solano of theft after finding that the evidence did not prove he knowingly took another customer's phone from a repair-shop counter.

The court ordered no criminal relief, payment or other remedy against Solano. The dispute turned on whether he knew the phone was someone else's when he picked it up, rather than simply whether he took the wrong device.

A repair ticket showed that Solano's own phone was ready for collection that afternoon, giving him a reason to visit the shop. But the ticket did not identify the phone he picked up or establish that he was entitled to it.

Messages exchanged after Solano left showed that the shop told him he had the wrong phone, that he agreed to bring it back and that the shop confirmed its return. Because the messages came later, they did not establish what he believed at the counter. The return alone neither proved nor disproved his earlier state of mind.

The prosecutor said an attendant warned Solano before he left. The judge treated that as a submission, not established evidence: no attendant testimony or other produced record confirmed the alleged warning. An account relayed through counsel that the attendant could speak to the phone's ownership and its removal was not admitted testimony or an independently verified document.

Solano's account that he thought the phone was his was not independently corroborated either, and the court did not accept it as conclusive. But the prosecutor bore the burden of proving the required element. Failing to check the label and the presence of other people in the shop could suggest carelessness or raise suspicion; without more, they did not reliably establish knowledge.

The prosecutor argued that Solano deliberately took the phone without checking with the attendant and had no reasonable basis to believe it was his. The prosecutor also maintained that the attendant had told him before he left that the phone belonged to someone else.

Solano's side said he came to collect his own phone and believed the device on the counter was his, while admitting that he did not check its label. The defence acknowledged that the ticket did not prove he was entitled to that particular phone and that there was no independent proof of his belief, but argued that the later messages could not establish his intent at pickup.

The shop identified the phone as another customer's. After Solano left, it contacted him about the mistake; the message exchange recorded his promise to return the device and the shop's confirmation that he did so.

The judgment did not establish what was said at the counter or affirmatively find that every detail of Solano's account was true. It decided the request on the record presented, without an adjournment, and identified no claimed amount or proven loss for a monetary remedy.