Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office vs. Rogerio (forest fire)

On September 29, 2016, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Criminal Action (APOrd) against Rogério, for the alleged practice of crimes under the articles 50-A (deforesting, exploiting or degrading public forest) and 41 (causing fire in forest) of the Federal Law 9,605/98 (Environmental Crimes Law). The complaint states that between September and October 2010, the defendant allegedly deforested, with the use of fire, 111,0675 hectares of native forest of the Amazon biome in an area of Union domain without authorization from the competent environmental agency. The defendant claimed to be a farmer and to have carried out the deforestation to establish pasture for raising dairy cattle. Afterwards, the defendant was judged to be in default. The decision of the judge set the final penalty at 04 (four) years and 02 (two) months of imprisonment and 30 (thirty) days fine. It was considered that the crimes committed under the articles 50-A and 41 of the Environmental Crimes Law were practiced in substantive joinder of offenses. In this occasion, the judge did not increase the base penalty of the crime provided for in art. 41 of the Environmental Crimes Law, as it was understood that the reasons that would give rise to an increase had already been considered when assessing the penalty related to article 50-A of the same law. The ruling refers to the emission of greenhouse gases when it mentions the use of fire by the defendant for the consummation of the crime of causing fire in a forest. The MPF filed an appeal requesting the revision of the dosimetry of the penalty applied, pleading for the recognition of judicial circumstances that increase the penalty of the crime of forest fire. It argued that the impact of the use of fire in the Amazon on climate change should be considered, since the defendant's action was especially serious given the extent of the burned area. It mentioned the impact of the fire on human health and the livelihoods of indigenous peoples. It was questioned the feasibility of increasing the sentence in the first phase of dosimetry of the ruling due to the aggravated impact of the crime on climate change. It requested the reform of the decision to negatively value the circumstance of the consequences of the crime of article 41 of the Environmental Crimes Law. The appeal is pending judgment by the competent Court.