The appellate court sentenced retired Carabineros officers Carlos Quevedo Rodríguez and Pedro Oliveros Aravena as perpetrators of the consummated crime of simple homicide. The illicit act was perpetrated on the premises of the Tenencia (police station) in the commune of Quinta de Tilcoco, O’Higgins Region, in July 1980.

The Santiago Court of Appeals sentenced retired Carabineros officers Carlos Aliro Quevedo Rodríguez and Pedro Antonio Oliveros Aravena to 4 years in prison, with the benefit of intensive supervised release for the same period, as perpetrators of the consummated crime of simple homicide.

The illicit act was perpetrated on the premises of the Tenencia in the commune of Quinta de Tilcoco, O’Higgins Region, in July 1980.

In a unanimous ruling (case file 6.120-2019), the First Chamber of the appellate court—composed of ministers Omar Astudillo, Elsa Barrientos, and Ana María Osorio—established the responsibility of the former police officers in the death of agricultural worker Guido Froilán Quintanilla Palominos, who was admitted to the police unit's holding cells after being detained for public intoxication.

“Consequently, based on the reviewed background information, particularly the medical testimonies, the aforementioned scientific expert reports, the instruments, the planimetric reports of the crime scene that have been analyzed previously, and the factual substrate contained in letters A) and B) of the third consideration of the first-instance judgment and in motive 2°, letters Ci) and Cii) of this ruling, a set of judicial presumptions is configured that allows for the establishment of the following fact:

On July 14, 1980, Guido Froilán Quintanilla Palominos was detained for public intoxication at approximately 19:15 hours by Sergeant Carlos Quevedo Rodríguez. He was transported to the premises of the Quinta de Tilcoco Tenencia, where he was received by the duty non-commissioned officer Pedro Oliveros Aravena and placed in one of the unlit holding cells.

There, he was subjected to at least one traumatic event by his custodians, Carabineros Carlos Quevedo and Pedro Oliveros, which caused him a series of injuries consisting of an extensive fracture at the base of the skull, consistent with a direct blunt force blow to the posterior area of the occipital bone, a fracture of the transverse processes of the cervical vertebrae related to the trauma at the base of the skull, and rib fractures.

These injuries caused a left subdural hematoma and a left hemothorax, which required his transfer to the Rengo Hospital, where he was admitted at 02:07 hours on July 15, 1980; he died as a result of the severity of his wounds on the 16th of the same month and year, at 07:30 hours at the Rancagua Hospital, to which he had been transferred as it was a higher-complexity health facility,” the ruling states.

The resolution adds: “As indicated in the ‘FOURTH’ foundation of the challenged pronouncement, the facts that have been deemed justified above constitute the crime of simple homicide of Guido Froilán Quintanilla Palominos, which occurred between July 14 and 16, 1980, provided for and sanctioned in Article 391 N°2 of the Penal Code in force at the time of the events.”

“Likewise, the criterion of the presiding judge is shared in order to qualify the illicit act that has been established as a crime against humanity, in accordance with the reflections in the ‘TWENTY-SIXTH’ foundation of the ruling under analysis and the reasoning in motives 3° and 9° letter a) that precede it,” it adds.

Custodial Homicide

The appellate court considered that, in this instance: “(…) it is deemed pertinent and necessary to add the particularities of this case that contribute to reaffirming that conclusion, namely:

13.1.- This case concerned the death of a person in custody, caused by blows dealt by State agents, as were Carabineros Quevedo and Oliveros, occurring at a time when the country was governed by a military regime during which human rights abuses were substantially executed against those who professed certain ideologies or were members of specific political parties, which were proscribed at that time.

However, situations were also detected in which such violations of fundamental rights had as victims vulnerable people, under the sensation of impunity that could favor those who could exercise quotas of power.

This is the situation in which Guido Froilán Quintanilla Palominos found himself at the time of his detention; he was a young agricultural worker, a peasant of humble origin who wore ojotas (sandals) and was in a state of intoxication when he was detained by Sergeant Quevedo.

This justified keeping him locked in an unlit cell beyond the legal deadline, without notifying his relatives, and in an environment inappropriate for his person, according to the testimony of Dr. Oreste Pallini, who received him at the Rengo Hospital in a state of deep coma and with traumatic brain injury, but also wearing a coat or jacket and clothing that was bloodstained and very damp, with bloody mucus, dirt, and apparently covered in mud.

This accounts for the physical mistreatment to which he was subjected during his prolonged detention, receiving blows of such magnitude that they caused his death at the hands of those who were obligated to watch over his physical integrity;

13.2.- Indeed, the observance of the guarantees recognized by the legal system in favor of all persons in a detention process is transferred to the State, represented—in the case sub lite—by the officials Carlos Quevedo and Pedro Oliveros, who became guarantors of those rights.

This obligated them to assume a protective role regarding the rights of the detainee, which in this instance was not only not fulfilled, but that detention allowed his custodians to attack his life, under the idea that, given the political conditions of the time and the victim's impoverished social condition, they would not be judged for the death of Quintanilla Palominos, remaining in total impunity.

13.3.- This idea is corroborated by the examination of the administrative summary conducted against the police officers, in which full credibility was given to their statements that it was Guido Quintanilla himself who had self-inflicted the mortal injuries; a situation that was repeated during the investigation developed by the Cachapoal Military Prosecutor's Office.

Faced with numerous scientific antecedents that accounted for the intervention of third parties in the death of Guido Quintanilla, the Prosecutor's Office not only did not make the criminal responsibility of Carabineros Quevedo and Oliveros effective, but also ordered a series of proceedings that appear directed at the objective of blurring such indications, generating confusion, using for this purpose reports from professionals who were medical officials of the military regime and acting within the framework of an investigation that did not meet the minimum standards of due process.

Under these conditions, the summary investigation culminated in irrelevant administrative sanctions for Carabineros Quevedo and Oliveros, as recorded on page 435 and following; and, in the case of the Military Prosecutor's investigation, with the temporary dismissal of the case just one year after the death of Guido Quintanilla.

In turn, the investigation initiated before the Local Police Court of Quinta de Tilcoco was based fundamentally on the police report on page 206, prepared precisely by Carabinero Pedro Oliveros and Lieutenant Luis Venti, which accounts for an attempted suicide by the victim—totally discarded by Dr.

Pallini—and self-inflicted blows against the walls and floor of the cell; the investigation was referred to the Criminal Court of Rengo which, shortly after and having the file initiated before the Military Justice in view, proceeded to the temporary dismissal of the case; a decision that was revoked by the superior court, with the knowledge of the facts being settled in the military justice system, which received the process and, without decreeing any proceedings, ordered the filing of the records.

Ten years later, at the request of the Judicial Prosecutor of this Court, Ms. Beatriz Pedrals, the investigation was reopened to conclude with the first-instance sentence of 2019, which has meant extending the clarification of the facts for more than 40 years;

13.3.- Resuming, the prolonged processing of the case, the exculpatory medical reports that have been scientifically debunked, and the repeated filing of the records reveal that the perpetrators ended up being protected by a military justice system of exorbitant competence determined by the political situation prevailing at the time.

Indeed, despite the medical background contained in the summary investigation and the process initiated due to these events, and notwithstanding the manifestly dubious nature of the police version and its scarce compatibility with scientific evidence, the matter was not truly investigated.

Rather, as already noted, the proceedings were oriented toward preventing the reality of the facts from being known.

13.4.- To these elements must be added the particular background of the process, such as the statement of Guido Quintanilla's widow, the witness Bernarda Catalán Zúñiga, who on page 15 indicated extrajudicially that her husband was a victim of the military repression of the time, that Carabineros notified her of his health situation, and that at the Legal Medical Service they informed her of the damage he suffered in both lungs and the fracture of several ribs.

To this are added those reports sent by the Program for the Continuation of Law 19.123 of the Ministry of the Interior, which appear on pages 7, and the conclusion reached by the Superior Council of the National Corporation for Reparation and Reconciliation on pages 10 and 292, stating that the death of Guido Froilán Quintanilla Palominos was caused by State agents during his detention.

Consequently, he was declared a victim of human rights violations, a recognition that allowed his widow and children to benefit from a pension in the case of the former and a bonus in the case of his descendants, as reported on page 1097, and to be included on the website of the Museum of Memory and Human Rights as a symbolic reparation.

Consequently, the context elements and the particular background of this process allow us to maintain and qualify as a crime against humanity the custodial homicide of Guido Quintanilla Palominos at the hands of State agents—Carabineros Carlos Quevedo Rodríguez and Pedro Oliveros Aravena—even if it was not determined by motives of political, religious, or racial persecution.”

Inconsistent Version

For the Santiago Court of Appeals, from the reviewed background, “(…) sufficient indications flow that allow for the establishment of the criminal responsibility assigned to the accused Quevedo and Oliveros as perpetrators, in accordance with Article 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, through presumptions, which in this instance constitute complete proof because they are based on real facts demonstrated in the process, such as: a) The circumstances of Guido Quintanilla Palominos having been detained by Sergeant Carlos Quevedo and handed over at the guard post to Carabinero Pedro Oliveros, with it being noted that he presented no visible injuries or contusions and that he entered the cell calmly without offering any resistance to his detention and search; b) that on that occasion there were no other detainees or other officials in charge of his custody other than officials Quevedo and Oliveros; c) that at the moment he was taken out of the cell, already badly wounded, to be transported to a healthcare center, he was wearing the sweater that Sergeant Quevedo claimed to have removed from him personally; d) that upon being examined at the Rengo Hospital by the doctor on duty, Dr. Pallini, the physician discarded any sign of the attempted hanging with the sweater referred to by both accused; e) that the dimensions of the cell where he was incarcerated did not allow for free movement since it was occupied almost entirely by a low-height wooden platform, so it was not possible to strike himself continuously against the platform; and, f) that it is not true that Quintanilla struck his head repeatedly against that platform and/or against the walls of the cell, since the only injury the victim presented was an occipital contusion.”

“On the other hand,” it delves, “the examination of the statements of the defendants exhibits a series of incongruities that lead to dismissing, as implausible, their version of the facts, that is, that the victim self-inflicted the mortal injuries.

Namely: a) Sergeant Quevedo stated that, faced with Quintanilla's attempt to hang himself with the sweater he was wearing, he removed the garment; b) that subsequently, upon seeing that he continued to strike himself, they took him out of the cell to the hallway and placed him on his side so that in case he vomited, he would not suffocate; c) that upon hearing a loud thud, they went to the cell and had difficulties opening the door because Quintanilla was lying at the entrance, hindering entry; and, d) that after the loud thud, upon entering the cell, the detainee was lying on his back on the platform, without external injuries. Without prejudice to these incoherencies, it is added that Sergeant Quevedo stated that he found Quintanilla Palominos sleeping near the plaza and took him into custody, only to later assert that he detained him because he was walking unsteadily due to his state of intoxication.

To these discrepancies is added what was maintained by Carabinero Oliveros, who stated that the detainee Quintanilla was shouting and sobbing, saying he wanted to kill himself, that he let himself fall onto the platform, that he tried to tie the sweater he was wearing to commit suicide, that the garment was removed personally by Sergeant Quevedo, and that after hearing a loud thud and shouts, he observed that the detainee Quintanilla was on the platform with his feet toward the door in a supine position.

This inconsistent version is contrasted with what was referred to by the witness Alejandro Tajan—driver of the ambulance that transported the injured man to the Rengo Hospital—who claimed to have found Guido Quintanilla face down on a wooden floor, with bloody mucus in his nose and wearing the sweater that was supposedly removed by Sergeant Quevedo.

In this context, the accusation directed against the defendants is based on multiple, serious, precise, and concordant presumptions that discard the exculpatory statements of the accused and, on the contrary, given their discrepancies and the incriminating elements that have been referred to previously, account for the intervention of Carabineros Quevedo Rodríguez and Oliveros Aravena in the detention of Quintanilla Palominos and in his subsequent death, which occurred while he was under their custody.”

“Consequently, given the existence of presumptions that allow for the well-founded accreditation that the defendants Carlos Aliro Quevedo Rodríguez and Pedro Antonio Oliveros Aravena had intervention as immediate and direct perpetrators in the investigated facts, enjoying a situation of custody and autonomous performance that allowed them to deploy homicidal behavior against the detainee Guido Froilán Quintanilla Palominos, they must be sentenced for the criminal charges formulated, in the terms that will be stated in the resolution of this sentence,” the ruling concludes.

Therefore, it is resolved

“ a.- THE APPEALED SENTENCE of August 23, 2019, written on page 1129 and following, is CONFIRMED, which sentences CARLOS ALIRO QUEVEDO RODRÍGUEZ and PEDRO ANTONIO OLIVEROS ARAVENA to the penalty of FOUR YEARS of minor imprisonment in its maximum degree, to the accessory penalties of absolute perpetual disqualification for political rights and absolute disqualification for public offices and positions during the time of the sentence, and to the payment of the costs of the proceedings, in their capacity as PERPETRATORS of the crime of SIMPLE HOMICIDE of Guido Froilán Quintanilla Palominos , which occurred between July 14 and 16, 1980, provided for and sanctioned in Article 391 N°2 of the Penal Code, in force at that time.

Because the requirements provided for in Article 15 bis and following of Law 18.216 are met in this instance, the execution of the custodial sentence imposed on the convicted CARLOS ALIRO QUEVEDO RODRÍGUEZ and PEDRO ANTONIO OLIVEROS ARAVENA shall be substituted by intensive supervised release for a term of four (04) years, and they must comply with the requirements provided for in Articles 17 and following of the cited law and in the form proposed in the first-instance ruling.”

Decision adopted with the caveat of Minister Osorio Astorga, who was in favor of sentencing the former Carabineros Quevedo Rodríguez and Oliveros Aravena to 5 years and one day of effective imprisonment.

In the civil aspect, the court confirmed the sentence, with the declaration that the compensation for damages in the form of moral harm that the State and the convicted Quevedo Rodríguez and Oliveros Aravena must pay jointly and severally to the victim's widow is increased to $40,000,000 (forty million pesos).

Source: pjud.cl, June 24, 2021