Minister Álvaro Mesa issues indictment against retired Carabineros for the homicide of a community member in the Chanco sector in 1975.

In the resolution, the visiting judge indicted former police officers Carlos Ramírez Aguilar and Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo as authors of the crime, which occurred during a raid on the victim's home.

The visiting judge for human rights violation cases in the jurisdictions of Temuco, Valdivia, Puerto Montt, and Coyhaique, Álvaro Mesa Latorre, presented an indictment against two retired members of the Carabineros for their responsibility in the crime of simple homicide of José Avelino Runca, an illicit act perpetrated in the Chanco sector, commune of San Pablo, on December 14, 1975.

In the resolution, docket 18-2011, the visiting judge indicted former police officers Carlos Ramírez Aguilar and Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo as authors of the crime, which occurred during a raid on the victim's home in which Carabineros and civilians participated, following a report of cattle rustling filed by a private individual.

During the investigation phase of the case, Minister Álvaro Mesa established the following facts: A.- That on the afternoon of December 13, 1975, the pair of Carabineros Carlos Ramírez Aguilar and Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo, belonging to the Quilacahuín station, in the company of Sergeant Rigoberto Ampuero of the 1st Osorno Police Station, were carrying out proceedings in the Chanco sector due to a report of the crime of cattle rustling filed by Mrs.

Elcira Ríos Asenjo (deceased, as recorded on page 1,073). Approximately eight neighbors from the sector were detained during said proceedings, identified by the complainant as suspects. Once they were detained, the sergeant allegedly instructed the other two Carabineros to take the detainees to the station, and then he withdrew from the scene.

To facilitate the proceedings, a group of civilians residing in the sector was formed to guide them through the fields and more easily locate the houses of the persons sought as suspects in the crime in question.

Among these civilians were Érico Arnoldo Asenjo Carrasco and his uncle, Mr. Julio Carrasco Asenjo (deceased, as recorded on page 1,074). B.- That in the early hours of December 14, 1975, while José Avelino Runca was at his home located in Cancha Larga, Chanco sector, the Carabinero Carlos Ramírez Aguilar (prosecuted on pages 294–295 and resolution on page 319–319 Vta.) and the Carabinero Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo (prosecuted on pages 792–797 and resolution on pages 926–927) arrived at his home without a prior judicial or police order issued by their superiors demanding their presence at said property. C.- That the aforementioned pair of uniformed officers stated they approached the property out of curiosity and by mutual agreement, having seen light and movement in the house late at night, in full knowledge that said property belonged to José Avelino Runca, who, until before September 11, 1973, was an active member of the Partido Comunista, a regional leader of said party, and a candidate for councilman on multiple occasions. D.- That by stationing themselves separately at both entrances of the house, one of them, Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo, at the main door while Carlos Ramírez Aguilar positioned himself in front of the back door, they proceeded to identify themselves as Carabineros and call out to the homeowner, Mr. José Avelino Runca, to come out of his home. E.- That on that occasion, Mr. José Avelino Runca was sleeping in his home in the company of his spouse, Mrs. María Orfelina Maricán Conapil (deceased, as recorded on page 1,075), and his daughters María Pascuala Runca Maricán and Ema Lucinda Runca Maricán, all of whom were sleeping in the same room of the house. Faced with the demand of the Carabineros, the victim proceeded to get dressed and then opened the main door of his house. He was taken out of it alone, becoming embroiled in a violent struggle with one of the uniformed officers. F.- That in said struggle, Mr. José Avelino Runca allegedly seized the service carbine carried by Carabinero Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo, upon which he proceeded to ask for help from his partner, Carlos Ramírez Aguilar, who, upon arriving to provide support and seeing José Avelino Runca escaping in the opposite direction, proceeded to shoot him in the back directly in the body, causing him to fall wounded. G.- That once that happened, both Carabineros, seeing him still alive, decided to leave him in those conditions in the middle of the field next to his house, without providing him any type of aid for his evident injury. H.- That after the above occurred, the pair of Carabineros continued with their proceedings and proceeded to take the detainees for cattle rustling to the station, requesting for this purpose a truck owned by Juan Vargas Bustamante (deceased, as recorded on page 1,076), who allegedly drove them to the aforementioned police unit. Among the detainees were Luis Pindal Miranda, Marcelo Treufo Pindal, the brothers Rubén Alonso Quichapai Millán (deceased, as recorded on page 1,072) and José Ubaldino del Tránsito Millán Millán, as well as José Eliseo Millán Guanque. I.- That after what happened, the family of José Avelino Runca present at the scene did not leave their home until the following morning, around five o'clock, with the intention of notifying other relatives about the detention, having no information regarding the whereabouts of José Avelino Runca. Upon returning to their home, they found military personnel and Carabineros searching their house, an instance in which María Orfelina Maricán Conapil and her two daughters, María Pascuala and Ema Lucinda, were also detained and placed at the disposal of the military prosecutor's office in Valdivia. J.- That the body of José Avelino Runca remained missing for about eight days, a period in which his relatives and neighbors carried out an exhaustive search around his home and surrounding sectors, without positive results. The body was subsequently found in a thicket adjacent to the victim's home by Mr. Jaime Canquil Lemo, a neighbor of the Runca family, in an evident state of decomposition, without a face due to it having been eaten by animals, with his black blanket arranged like a pillow, without shoes, and with his pants unbuttoned. K.- That the autopsy protocol performed on the body, the report of which was issued on January 3, 1976, and which is recorded on page 76, indicates that the injuries caused by the bullet were fatal, that due to the great hemorrhagic-inflammatory reaction the death was not immediate, and that due to its intensity it is impossible that he could have walked on his own or hidden. Conclusions supported by a forensic medical expert report regarding the original autopsy, which indicates that the death of José Avelino Runca was a death in custody, violent, against the victim's will, and caused by third parties, with the cause of death being an abdominal gunshot wound.

Source: diarioconstitucional.cl; March 18, 2019

Supreme Court confirms ruling that convicted retired Carabineros for the 1975 homicide of an agricultural worker

In a unanimous ruling, the Second Chamber of the highest court confirmed the sentence that convicted Armando Figueroa Angulo and Carlos Ramírez Aguilar to 7 years in prison as authors of the crime, classified as a crime against humanity.

The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeals filed against the sentence that convicted two retired Carabineros for their responsibility in the crime of simple homicide of the agricultural worker José Avelino Runca.

The illicit act was committed in Chanco, commune of Osorno, in December 1975. In a unanimous ruling (case docket 48.397-2021), the Second Chamber of the highest court—composed of ministers Haroldo Brito, Manuel Antonio Valderrama, Jorge Dahm, Leopoldo Llanos, and minister María Teresa Letelier—confirmed the challenged sentence, issued by the Court of Appeals of Temuco, which convicted Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo and Carlos Alberto Ramírez Aguilar to 7 years of effective prison time as authors of the crime, classified as a crime against humanity. "As can be seen from the merits of the case, in the cassation appeal in substance filed by the defense of the convicted Armando Figueroa, three grounds have been subsidiarily raised that are contradictory to each other," the ruling states. The resolution adds: "In the first place, that of numeral 1 of article 546 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in the second place, that of No. 2 of the cited precept, which causes them to cancel each other out, since the first requires that said qualification be the appropriate one and the other that the qualification of the facts is not the correct one, for which reason a pronouncement on them does not formally correspond, since it would imply that the Supreme Court would have to select another ground, which already allows for the rejection of their brief." "Likewise, the grounds already outlined are incompatible with the ground of No. 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the first two do not dispute the established facts, whereas the third invoked ground implies disregarding the facts," it adds. For the Criminal Chamber: "(...) according to what was previously stated, it is feasible to appreciate that it is an argument somewhat imprecise in its construction, since the cassation grounds of numbers 1, 2, and 7 of article 546 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are invoked jointly, alleging both an absence of criminal responsibility and an existing one, but attenuated and deserving of a lesser sanction, which already threatens the success of an appeal of strict law; furthermore, what is requested by the appellant is contradictory, since he requests the acquittal of his client or that he be convicted as the author of a crime of unnecessary violence and a more attenuated penalty, so they cannot prosper." "Furthermore, since the ruling SCS 05.1920, G.J. 1920, 1st sem., no. 60, p. 323, onwards, the jurisprudence has been maintaining that the ground of No. 1 necessarily assumes the existence of the crime and the responsibility of the accused, since it results from an imposition on the prisoner of a penalty different from the one that corresponds to him (Repertory of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cit., T. III, pp. 342 et seq.)," the resolution clarifies. "In conclusion," it deepens, "what the petitioner begins by disregarding, then accepts, and ends by denying again, from which it is inferred that the ground of nullity under study contains motives that are incompatible with each other, based on different, contradictory, and irreconcilable assumptions, which cancel each other out and which, consequently, are foreign to the appeal of strict law that is the cassation in substance." Likewise, the ruling records: "That regarding the appeal filed by the defense of the convicted Ramírez Aguilar, it has incurred in the same vice indicated previously, since it bases its appeal on the first, second, and fifth grounds of article 546 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since as indicated previously, not only are the first and second circumstances incompatible with each other, but also what is requested by the appellant is contradictory, since he requests the acquittal of his client or that he be convicted as the author of a quasi-crime of homicide or a lower penalty." "In conclusion, the present appeal suffers from similar contradictions to the one analyzed previously and filed by the defense of the convicted Armando Figueroa, that is, disregarding on one hand, then accepting, and finally returning to disregard, which again makes the grounds proposed for this appeal of strict law incompatible with each other, making it impossible for them to prosper," it concludes. "That without prejudice to what has already been pointed out, regarding the ground proposed by the appeal under analysis, insofar as the non-application of article 93 No. 6 and 95 both of the Penal Code has been denounced, regarding the statute of limitations, the second-instance sentence in its fourth consideration correctly declares that the crime in question constitutes a crime against humanity, which is why the passage of time is not a way to extinguish responsibility, there being an express prohibition in International Human Rights Law to apply this institution in this type of process, in which serious human rights violations are investigated and which explains the prohibition of applying it. Consequently, if the basis for the rejection, in the case of the general statute of limitations, is that the passage of time cannot extinguish responsibility in a crime against humanity. For this reason, the ground cannot prosper," it concludes. Death in custody In the first-instance sentence, the extraordinary visiting judge Álvaro Mesa Latorre established the following facts: " A. That on the afternoon of December 13, 1975, the pair of Carabineros Carlos Ramírez Aguilar and Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo, belonging to the Quilacahuín Station, in the company of Sergeant Rigoberto Ampuero of the 1st Osorno Police Station, were carrying out proceedings in the Chanco sector due to a report of the crime of cattle rustling filed by Mrs. Elcira Ríos Asenjo (deceased, as recorded on page 1,073, document B.24). Approximately eight neighbors from the sector were detained during said proceedings, identified by the complainant as suspects. Once they were detained, the sergeant allegedly instructed the other two Carabineros to take the detainees to the station, and then he withdrew from the scene. To facilitate the proceedings, a group of civilians residing in the sector was formed to guide them through the fields and more easily locate the houses of the persons sought as suspects in the crime in question. Among these civilians were Érico Arnoldo Asenjo Carrasco and his uncle, Mr. Julio Carrasco Asenjo (deceased, as recorded on page 1,074, document B.24). B. That in the early hours of December 14, 1975, and in circumstances in which José Avelino Runca was at his home located in Cancha Larga, Chanco sector, commune of Osorno, the Carabinero Carlos Ramírez Aguilar (prosecuted on pages 294–295 and resolution on page 319–319 Vta.) and the Carabinero Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo (prosecuted on pages 792–797 and resolution on pages 926–927) arrived at his home without a prior judicial or police order issued by their superiors that demanded his presence at said property. C. That the aforementioned pair of uniformed officers stated they approached the property out of curiosity and by mutual agreement, having seen light and movement in the house late at night, in full knowledge that said property belonged to José Avelino Runca, who, until before September 11, 1973, was an active member of the Partido Comunista, a regional leader of said party, and a candidate for councilman on multiple occasions (as recorded in the Report of the Partido Comunista de Chile on page 753, Volume III, document B.20). D. That by stationing themselves separately at both entrances of the house, one of them, Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo, at the main door while Carlos Ramírez Aguilar positioned himself in front of the back door, they proceeded to identify themselves as Carabineros and call out to the homeowner, Mr. José Avelino Runca, to come out of his home. E. That on that occasion, Mr. José Avelino Runca was sleeping in his home in the company of his spouse, Mrs. María Orfelina Maricán Conapil (deceased, as recorded on page 1,075, document B.24), and his daughters María Pascuala Runca Maricán and Ema Lucinda Runca Maricán, all of whom were sleeping in the same room of the house. Faced with the demand of the Carabineros, the victim proceeded to get dressed and then opened the main door of his house. He was taken out of it alone, becoming embroiled in a violent struggle with one of the uniformed officers. F. That in said struggle, Mr. José Avelino Runca allegedly seized the service carbine carried by Carabinero Armando Félix Figueroa Angulo, upon which he proceeded to ask for help from his partner, Carlos Ramírez Aguilar, who, upon arriving to provide support and seeing José Avelino Runca escaping in the opposite direction, proceeded to shoot him in the back directly in the body, causing him to fall wounded. G. That once that happened, both Carabineros, seeing him still alive, decided to leave him in those conditions in the middle of the field next to his house, without providing him any type of aid for his evident injury. H. That after the above occurred, the pair of Carabineros continued with their proceedings and proceeded to take the detainees for cattle rustling to the station, requesting for this purpose a truck owned by Juan Vargas Bustamante (deceased, as recorded on page 1,076, document B.24), who allegedly drove them to the aforementioned police unit. Among the detainees were Luis Pindal Miranda, Marcelo Treufo Pindal, the brothers Rubén Alonso Quichapai Millán (deceased, as recorded on page 1,072, document B.24) and José Ubaldino del Tránsito Millán Millán, as well as José Eliseo Millán Guanque. I. That after what happened, the family of José Avelino Runca present at the scene did not leave their home until the following morning, around five o'clock, with the intention of notifying other relatives about the detention, having no information regarding the whereabouts of José Avelino Runca. Upon returning to their home, they found military personnel and Carabineros searching their house, an instance in which María Orfelina Maricán Conapil and her two daughters, María Pascuala and Ema Lucinda, were also detained and placed at the disposal of the Military Prosecutor's Office in Valdivia (as recorded in the Report of the Chief of the General Staff of the Army, document B.5). J. That the body of José Avelino Runca remained missing for about eight days, a period in which his relatives and neighbors carried out an exhaustive search around his home and surrounding sectors, without positive results. The body was subsequently found in a thicket adjacent to the victim's home by Mr. Jaime Canquil Lemo, a neighbor of the Runca family, in an evident state of decomposition, without a face due to it having been eaten by animals, with his black blanket arranged like a pillow, without shoes, and with his pants unbuttoned. K. That the autopsy protocol performed on the body, the report of which was issued on January 3, 1976, and which is recorded on page 76, indicates that the injuries caused by the bullet were fatal, that due to the great hemorrhagic-inflammatory reaction the death was not immediate, and that due to its intensity it is impossible that he could have walked on his own or hidden. Conclusions supported by a Forensic Medical Expert Report (from page 531 to page 538, a copy of which is found from page 544 to page 550, Volume II, indicated in document B.17) regarding the original autopsy, which indicates that the death of José Avelino Runca was a death in custody, violent, against the victim's will, and caused by third parties, with the cause of death being an abdominal gunshot wound. "

Source: pjud.cl, November 27, 2023