In the Cristóbal Miranda case, house arrest has been confirmed for those charged with homicide in Talcahuano.

The Court of Appeals of Concepción rejected the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office, confirming the decision that dismissed preventive detention for four individuals accused of the homicide of Cristóbal Miranda. Thus, Benjamín Ignacio Folch Friedl, Agustín Luciano Pezo Aguilera, León Agustín Flores Basáez, and Frank Hengst Salas—charged as co-authors of qualified homicide—will remain under the precautionary measures of total house arrest and national arraigo. This decision represents a significant setback for the prosecution's strategy and the plaintiffs, including the Ministry of Public Security and the victim's family, who insisted on the maximum precautionary measure due to the severity of the events that occurred in Talcahuano during the recent New Year celebration.

It is worth noting that the young man died after receiving a brutal beating during a party, a case that has shocked the Bío Bío region. The defenses argued against the maximum precautionary measure, claiming that their clients have an irreproachable previous conduct and have cooperated in the investigation. For the Fifth Chamber, composed of Minister Camilo Álvarez Órdenes and Ministers Viviana Iza Miranda and María Alejandra Ceroni Valenzuela: “Regarding the requirement outlined in Article 140(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is the existence of evidence that reasonably suggests the participation of the accused, this Court, based on what was presented by the participants in the hearing and the evidence gathered so far, believes there is reasonable conviction regarding the participation of the accused in the events subject to the process, as the participants agree that the defendants were present at the time and place of the events and that they had an involvement in them, the qualification and degree of criminal participation of which must be determined once the investigation is concluded in the relevant venue.

” “For now, the need for precaution is satisfied with the personal measures imposed, which were only challenged by the prosecuting entity, determining, therefore, that the purposes of the procedure are sufficiently guaranteed with these precautionary measures applied to the accused,” they concluded.