It's not close enough to be significant as shown by your seismicity map, especially when considering how many Costa Rica has. That's the whole point. Look at how many earthquakes are on the seismicity map in Costa Rica and look how few are in Panama.
You seem like you just like to argue and bring up points that are not relevant. A school child could see the difference yet you have to bring up irrelevant points like three tectonic plates being "very" close.
Imagine someone that moves (in June 2009) from CR to Panama to 'avoid' earthquakes and then the next thing they feel is one of those I mentioned in my links (is it clear or not that they failed??)
A kindergarden kid would figure out that you don't escape earthquakes by moving from a country to the neighboring one when both are in the pacific ring of fire AND on an area where three tectonic plates are busy interacting and they too have volcanoes blabla
In summary moving 200 miles north or south of costa rica won't get you out of earthquake risk (Americans have problems with geography so when speaking of Panama I want to be specific that I talk about Panama as in the country, obviously the province of Chiriqui and Bocas del Toro are part of Panama and actually David is popular among American retirees )