A father accused of failing to prevent the death of his two-year-old daughter has been ordered into preventive detention after a court reversed a lower ruling that had downgraded the charges against him. Jorge Constanzo, an architect, now faces charges of homicide by omission following a fatal fall from the 11th floor of a Las Condes building last Sunday.
How the Case Unfolded
The investigation began when the Ministry Public formally charged Constanzo with homicide by omission through eventual intent on Monday. The prosecutor’s office had sought the maximum precautionary measure—preventive detention—arguing the risk to the child was foreseeable and avoidable. However, the Fourth Guarantee Court initially classified the case as a quasi-delict (negligence), a decision the Fiscalía immediately appealed.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals of Santiago overturned the lower court’s ruling, reinstating the homicide by omission charge. The court’s decision cited Constanzo’s professional knowledge as an architect, his failure to secure the window with protective mesh and the fact that the window was left open. According to the Fiscalía, these actions—combined with his alleged state of intoxication—demonstrate a conscious disregard for the child’s safety.
Key Allegations Against Constanzo
Prosecutors emphasize that Constanzo, who was responsible for the child’s care for six hours, knew the risks associated with an unsecured 11th-floor window. Investigators found the window open upon arriving at the scene, a detail they argue could not have been caused by the child herself. Testimonies from Constanzo and his partner also describe his consumption of alcohol, including a siesta during which he reportedly failed to respond to neighbors knocking on the door after the child fell.
prosecutors allege Constanzo deceived the child’s mother by claiming he had installed protective window mesh—a claim later proven false. The Fiscalía’s legal advisor, Pamela Valdés, stated that the case involved “a situation of risk that could have been avoided,” given Constanzo’s profession and his awareness of the dangers.
Legal and Investigative Next Steps
Constanzo now faces a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison for homicide, though his prior conduct has been described as “irreproachable.” The case will hinge on pending forensic evidence, including alcohol and toxicology tests for both Constanzo and his partner, as well as further analysis of the window’s condition and the final report from the Medical Legal Service (SML). These results could provide critical context for the trial.
Constanzo’s detention will be carried out by Gendarmería, pending further legal proceedings. His legal team may challenge the preventive detention order or seek alternative measures, but the Fiscalía’s decision to appeal the initial ruling suggests confidence in the strength of the evidence against him.
The original charge of homicide by omission was initially downgraded to a quasi-delict (negligence) by the lower court, a decision that required an appeal to the Court of Appeals to reinstate the more serious offense. This reversal underscores the gravity with which prosecutors view the case.
Cases involving child safety and parental responsibility often hinge on whether prosecutors can prove intent—or at least reckless disregard—rather than mere negligence. Here, the Fiscalía’s emphasis on Constanzo’s profession (as an architect), his alleged deception about window safety measures, and his state of intoxication suggests a deliberate failure to act. Such cases also raise broader questions about liability in high-risk living situations, particularly when children are involved. The outcome could set a precedent for how Chilean courts assess parental duty in similar tragedies.
Frequently Asked Questions
[Question 1]
What specific actions led to the reversal of the initial ruling?
The Court of Appeals reinstated the homicide by omission charge after determining that Constanzo’s failure to secure the window, his alleged intoxication, and his deception about safety measures demonstrated a conscious disregard for the child’s life—qualifying as more than mere negligence.
[Question 2]
What evidence is still pending in the case?
Investigators are awaiting the results of alcohol and toxicology tests for Constanzo and his partner, forensic analysis of the window (including fingerprints and photographic evidence), and the final report from the Medical Legal Service (SML). These could further clarify the circumstances of the incident.
[Question 3]
What is the potential penalty if Constanzo is convicted?
If convicted of homicide by omission, Constanzo could face up to 20 years in prison, as the charge carries a maximum sentence of presidio mayor in its medium-high range.
In cases where a child’s life is lost due to preventable circumstances, the legal and emotional consequences ripple far beyond the courtroom. How do you think communities can better address the risks of high-rise living with young children?
Related reading