Justice for Marjorie Palma: Court Sentences Perpetrator to Life Imprisonment for Femicide in Lo Espejo

Original article: Justicia por Marjorie Palma: tribunal condena a presidio perpetuo a autor de femicidio en Lo Espejo

In a unanimous verdict, the court sentenced David Fernando Valenzuela Reyes to life imprisonment for the completed crime of femicide against Marjorie Palma, which occurred in August 2022.

In a landmark ruling against gender-based violence, the Sixth Oral Criminal Court in Santiago condemned David Fernando Valenzuela Reyes to simple life imprisonment as the author of the crime of femicide.

This crime, committed in August 2022 in the municipality of Lo Espejo, resulted in the death of Marjorie Johanna Palma Celedón, who was the cohabitant of the sentenced individual and a victim of habitual domestic violence.

The court’s decision, led by Judges José Manuel Rodríguez Guerra (president), Washington Jaña Tapia, and Macarena Rubilar Navarrete (rapporteur), not only imposes the maximum penalty under the law but also includes additional measures that reflect the severity of the incident and its impact on the victim’s family.

Establishing the Femicide and Context of Habitual Violence

The court established, beyond reasonable doubt, that at around three in the morning on August 13, 2022, within the shared residence of the victim and her assailant, located at Pasaje Mercurio No. 3615, Lo Espejo, Valenzuela Reyes lethally attacked Marjorie Palma, who died from «asphyxia by strangulation.»

The ruling emphasizes that the crime occurred in a context of habitual violence, an aggravating factor considered by the judges when assessing the gravity of the offense.

The victim had previously reported domestic violence and there were restraining orders against the perpetrator.

Life Imprisonment for David Valenzuela

Regarding the imposition of the sentence, the court applied simple life imprisonment, based on a thorough analysis of the modifying circumstances of criminal liability.

“As will be specified in the resolution, the accused will be sentenced to the corporal penalty of simple life imprisonment,” states the ruling.

The resolution adds that: “Initially, it should be noted that the crime of femicide is punishable, as prescribed by Article 390 bis of the Penal Code, with a maximum punishment of greater imprisonment up to qualified life imprisonment. Therefore, considering the concurrence of two mitigating and two aggravating factors, the penalty can be extended to its full range, pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, in relation to Article 67, final paragraph, of the same legal body.”

“In this regard, concerning the specific extent of the penalty, it will be applied in the above-mentioned quantum since these judges believe it must be imposed at its midpoint. Indeed, according to what Article 69 of the Penal Code provides, two mitigating factors and two aggravating factors are present,” the document adds.

Moreover, the ruling states: “Now, in relation to the other parameter referred to in the cited Article 69, namely, the greater or lesser extent of the harm caused by the crime, these judges consider it necessary to increase the quantum of the corporal penalty.” At this point, the magistrates were emphatic in noting that the damage caused by Valenzuela Reyes far exceeded what is inherent to the crime of femicide.

“In the view of the Court, in this particular case, there is a greater disvalue than that inherent to the crime of femicide,” highlights the ruling.

Devastating Impact on the Family: A Harm that Transcends the Victim

One of the most heartbreaking aspects of the ruling is the consideration of the suffering caused within Marjorie Palma’s immediate circle.

“In this regard, the impact on the family group, particularly her parents and brother, who were very close, is highlighted in the statements,” underscores the ruling.

“The court considers the severe family repercussions; the victim was a young, hardworking woman with her whole life ahead of her, and her death not only caused severe harm to her mother but also affected her father’s emotional state, indicating she was his eldest daughter and that this event impacted his marital relationship.”

Given the fallout of the femicide, it was necessary for the entire family group to receive reparative therapy.

Testimony from Lisette Barahona Matus left a profound impression on the court, as she recounted how this act destroyed the family, as recorded in the ruling.

These details and testimonies were crucial for the judges’ decision not to impose the minimum penalty.

“For these reasons, which reflect the greater extent of the harm caused, the court will not impose the penalty at its minimum,” states the ruling, in an effort to ensure that the punishment is proportional to the scale of harm inflicted.

Additional Measures and Effective Enforcement of the Sentence

In addition to the deprivation of liberty, the court imposed a series of supplementary sanctions on Valenzuela Reyes. Among these are a perpetual absolute disqualification for public positions and political rights for the lifetime of the convicted, as well as being subject to authority surveillance for the maximum period stipulated by the Penal Code.

Once the ruling is finalized, the court ordered biological samples to be taken from the convict to determine his genetic fingerprint and incorporate it into the national DNA registry of convicts.

In line with the charges presented, the court also applied a special supplementary penalty under Law No. 20.066 on Domestic Violence.

“Finally, consistent with the charges regarding the femicide committed under Law No. 20.066, since it involves not only the victim’s life but also because she had underage siblings, there shall be imposed, for a period of two years from the effective execution of the corporal penalty, the special supplementary penalty contemplated in section c) of Article 9 of the same legislative text, namely, a prohibition on the carrying and possession of firearms,” details the ruling.

The judges justified the extension of this measure to the maximum legal limits based on the convicted’s background.

“Regarding its extension, situated at the legal maximum, this is based on the fact that the accused has prior convictions,” states the ruling.

However, the court rejected other measures requested, including “the special supplementary measure contemplated in section d) of Article 9 of the same legislative text, mandatory attendance at therapeutic programs, due to lack of foundation as it was not argued during the sentencing hearing or provided with legal grounds to deem it appropriate,” clarifies the ruling.

Ultimately, any possibility for Valenzuela Reyes to access prison benefits or alternative sentences was dismissed.

“Given the extent of the deprivation of liberty sentence to be imposed on the accused, it must be served in a real and effective manner, consequently, no alternative sentences provided for in Law No. 18.216 are applicable,” concludes the ruling.

View the First Instance Ruling