In less than 5 months, the Family Judge of Arica, Luis Jorquera Díaz, has registered 2 arrests and formalizations for the crimes of domestic violence and theft, in addition to an administrative summary instructed by the Plenary Session of the Court of Appeals of Arica. After the last incident, the magistrate remains away from his duties, as he presented medical leave.
The case of the Arica judge joins a series of controversies that have involved members of the Judiciary. The most notable among these was the controversy over the high-end Lexus cars that the Corporation of the Judiciary was planning to buy for the ministers of the Supreme Court, an investment that was later voided after the case became publicly known.
There is also the controversy caused by Judge Daniel Urrutia, of the 7th Guarantee Court, who decided to grant prison benefits to four highly dangerous prisoners, held in the High Security Prison. Decision that has been objected to by the Executive and the Prosecutor’s Office because it would put ongoing investigations against organized crime at risk.
Added to these cases is the controversy of María González Yutronic, the so-called gambling judge, on whom the prosecutor’s office has an open investigation for fraud, unfair administration and falsification or malicious use of public documents. And how can we not forget Guarantee Judge Héctor Barraza, who handed over the identities of protected witnesses and undercover agents who helped investigate “Los Gallegos” (the faction of the Tren de Aragua that operates in Arica), generating indignation in the Government, Ministry Public, PDI and Gendarmerie.
Jorquera Case
The first judicial process that Judge Luis Jorquera faced began on September 3, 2023. On that occasion, the Guarantee Judge, Rodrigo Urrutia Molina, formalized it for the crime of less serious injuries in the context of domestic violence against his partner. and lawyer from Arica, with whom she has a daughter. To protect the victim, the magistrate prohibited him from approaching the woman such as her home, “place of work or study, as well as any other place where she regularly attends or visits,” according to the resolution of the RIT case. 5910-2023.
Although the Public Prosecutor’s Office exhibited documentation proving the woman’s injuries, the process took a different direction 46 days later. This is because on October 19 of last year, the Guarantee Judge, Paulina Zúñiga Lira, decided to definitively dismiss the case.
The peculiar thing about the hearing is that it had been summoned by the Guarantee Court at the request of the Prosecutor’s Office, so that the accused could receive a conditional suspension of the procedure and not for a definitive dismissal of the case. In the request signed by the chief prosecutor Trinidad Steinert Herrera, the Public Ministry established compliance for one year with the conditions of “establishing domicile and informing the Public Ministry of any change thereof” and also “submitting to evaluation and possible treatment against the impulse control.
The judge did not appear at the hearing. The reason: simply because by having accepted the conditional suspension of the procedure, he put his continuity in the Judiciary at risk. This is expressly stated in article 256 of the Organic Code of Courts, where in its 5th paragraph it says that “those who, in accordance with the criminal procedural law, are accused of a crime or simple offense or are subject to suspension cannot be judges.” conditional of the procedure; and adds in paragraph 6 that this disqualification also applies to those “who have been convicted of a crime or simple offense.”
Although it was his own partner who reported him and initiated the domestic violence case, at the hearing on October 19, which was only to decide the conditional suspension, the magistrate ordered the victim to testify and after hearing his retraction, resolved the definitive dismissal of the process.
Judge Zúñiga’s resolution states that “the background information is sufficient to conclude that it appears unquestionably that the facts investigated in this case do not constitute the crime for which the accused was prosecuted.”
Theft
Less than 5 months after his arrest for domestic violence, Judge Jorquera was involved in a new episode that led him to be charged again, when he was arrested on February 6, for the theft of cat food for an amount of 30,679 pesos in a supermarket of the Santa Isabel chain in Arica.
According to the police report presented by the Prosecutor’s Office, “at approximately 7:10 p.m., in the Santa Isabel supermarket located on Pedro Aguirre Cerda Street No. 1010 in the city of Arica, the accused Mr. LUIS HÉCTOR JORQUERA PINTO, without the will of Its owner and for profit appropriated 01 frozen tuna, 01 500-gram salmon, 01 Daily brand sweetener, 08 Whiskas brand cat food sachet, 05 Whiskas salmon sachet for cats, valued at $30,679 pesos, owned by the Santa Isabel supermarket.”
The document adds that “the accused was surprised after paying for other products and trying to leave the place by crossing the line of cash registers, for which he was detained by civilians who serve as security guards at the premises, until the arrival of Carabineros.” .
The Prosecutor’s Office decided to formalize it the next day for theft-misdemeanor. The regional prosecutor Mario Carrera explains that on the same day of the arrest, when reviewing the web log that records the flagrante detentions carried out by the police, he ordered that the magistrate not apply the usual procedure for these cases, where only the summons of the accused, since the sanction to which they are exposed is only the payment of a fine.
According to what he indicates, “in this region, for 3 years we have not transferred theft-misdemeanors to arrest control. We passed this case because I found that, having the quality of a judge, I could not not pass it. Misdemeanor thefts, as they are punishable by fines, are normally cited; they do not go to detention control.”
The hearing also had another particular detail. The Guarantee judge, Rodrigo Urrutia Molina, who had previously formalized it for minor injuries to his partner in September of last year, decided this time that the hearing be reserved.
Prosecutor Carrera pointed out that for the Public Ministry this decision is irrelevant, “since it makes no sense. The proof of this is that you have the minutes of the hearing.” Regarding whether this determination was intended to exercise the judge’s protection of another peer, Carrera states that “that question should be asked to the defender, the accused or the judge. We complied with transferring him to detention control. “I considered that he had to be transferred to detention control, because I considered that the demands placed on a public official with that category must be greater than that of other citizens.”
After hearing the formalization, the magistrate denied his participation in the events, so the court had to set a new hearing for next March 7, where an abbreviated trial will be held with the evidence presented by the Prosecutor’s Office.
The Public Ministry is requesting a fine of 4 Monthly Tax Units (257,372 pesos) and a reduction to 1 UTM if the judge accepts responsibility.
In response to the query of The Showedr on whether any sanction will be applied to the magistrate for the detention in the supermarket, the Regional Communications Office of the Judiciary issued a statement stating that “once the facts were known to this Court of Appeals, the Plenary Court agreed – by unanimous decision – to open a disciplinary investigation against Judge Luis Jorquera Pinto, which is ongoing, and which was left to the judicial prosecutor of this Court.”
Regarding the reservation of the hearing, he indicated that “this is a jurisdictional decision and, as such, it is susceptible to challenge through the resources that the law provides and that in this case were not deducted, which is why this Court of Appeals has not taken any formal knowledge of the aforementioned reservation.”
On the same day of the arrest control, the Santiago lawyer Jorge Bell Mardones, representing Cencosud Retail SA, also filed a complaint for the theft of species in the Arica supermarket, joining as an intervener who will probably require compensation from the magistrate for the theft of species.
Meanwhile, when the Regional Public Criminal Defender’s Office was consulted regarding the deferential treatment applied to the Family judge, when requesting the reservation of the detention control hearing, the Communications Office indicated that the issue would be taken for consultation at its central level to issue a pronouncement.
View documents
1.Cencosud Complaint
2Hearing for conditional suspension of the procedure
3Conditional Suspension Resolution
4.Disciplinary Investigation