A pattern of criminalizing Mapuche activism over land rights
En el sur de Chile, donde las disputas por la tierra llevan siglos de historia, dieciocho comuneros mapuche han visto confirmada su absolución por segunda vez: primero ante el tribunal oral y ahora ante la Corte de Apelaciones de Valdivia, que rechazó en mayo de 2026 el recurso de nulidad interpuesto por la empresa agrícola Las Vertientes. La justicia, al menos en sus instancias inferiores, ha determinado que la evidencia no alcanzó para probar participación alguna en el robo de madera nativa ocurrido entre 2018 y 2019 en Panguipulli. Sin embargo, la persistencia de la empresa en impugnar el veredicto recuerda que los conflictos entre comunidades indígenas e intereses privados rara vez encuentran cierre en una sola sala de audiencias.
- Una empresa agrícola se niega a aceptar la absolución de dieciocho comuneros mapuche y lleva su impugnación hasta la Corte de Apelaciones, manteniendo viva una causa que el tribunal oral ya había cerrado.
- La Corte de Apelaciones de Valdivia rechaza el recurso de nulidad y ratifica que la evidencia presentada por la fiscalía fue insuficiente para acreditar la participación de los acusados en el robo de madera.
- La defensa celebra el fallo pero advierte que la empresa podría escalar el caso a la Corte Suprema, prolongando la incertidumbre jurídica para los comuneros absueltos.
- La abogada Orietta Llauca denuncia un patrón sistemático de criminalización de la actividad mapuche, señalando que el sistema penal ha sido utilizado históricamente para deslegitimar las demandas de tierras ancestrales.
- El caso queda en un equilibrio frágil: dos absoluciones confirmadas, pero la amenaza de un tercer round judicial que podría llegar hasta el máximo tribunal del país.
En el sector de Trafún, cerca de Liquiñe, en la comuna de Panguipulli, la empresa agrícola Las Vertientes denunció entre 2018 y 2019 el robo de especies de madera nativa de su propiedad. La investigación derivó en cargos contra veinte comuneros mapuche por robo y receptación; dos fueron apartados del proceso por razones de salud, y los dieciocho restantes enfrentaron juicio oral.
Al concluir el juicio, el tribunal determinó que la evidencia aportada por la fiscalía no lograba acreditar la participación de ninguno de los acusados en los hechos. En marzo de 2026, los dieciocho comuneros fueron absueltos. Las Vertientes respondió interponiendo un recurso de nulidad ante la Corte de Apelaciones de Valdivia, buscando revertir el veredicto por vicios de forma o fondo. El tribunal de alzada examinó el recurso y lo rechazó en mayo de 2026, confirmando que la absolución original descansaba en fundamentos jurídicos sólidos.
Orietta Llauca, abogada de la defensa, valoró la resolución pero advirtió que difícilmente sería la última palabra. A su juicio, la insistencia de la empresa en impugnar el fallo responde a una lógica más amplia: el uso del sistema penal como herramienta para presionar a comunidades mapuche que reivindican derechos sobre territorios ancestrales. Llauca anticipó que Las Vertientes probablemente recurrirá a la Corte Suprema.
Para los dieciocho comuneros, la doble confirmación de su absolución representa un alivio concreto, aunque provisional. El caso encarna una tensión que define el sur de Chile desde hace generaciones: el choque entre comunidades indígenas y propietarios privados, dirimido en tribunales que los críticos consideran estructuralmente desfavorables para los pueblos originarios. Mientras la empresa evalúa su próximo paso, la causa permanece abierta en el horizonte.
In the southern Chilean region of Araucanía, a legal battle over stolen timber has ended—at least for now—with the Valdivia Appeals Court rejecting an attempt to overturn the acquittal of 18 Mapuche communards. The court's decision, issued in May 2026, upheld a March verdict that found insufficient evidence to prove the defendants' participation in the theft of native wood species from a private property.
The case began with a theft that occurred sometime between 2018 and 2019 on land in the Trafún sector near Liquiñe, in Panguipulli. The property was owned by an agricultural company called Las Vertientes, which reported the loss to authorities. The investigation that followed cast a wide net, eventually charging 20 Mapuche communards with theft and receiving stolen goods. Two of those charged were dismissed from the case due to health issues, leaving 18 to face trial.
When the case went to oral proceedings, prosecutors presented evidence they believed would establish the defendants' guilt. The trial judge disagreed. After examining what the state had presented, the court determined the evidence fell short of proving any of the 18 had actually participated in taking the wood. In March 2026, all 18 were acquitted.
Las Vertientes did not accept the verdict. The company filed a nullity appeal—a legal mechanism designed to overturn a judgment on grounds of procedural error or fundamental legal defect. The Valdivia Appeals Court reviewed the challenge and rejected it, affirming that the original acquittal stood on solid legal ground.
Orietta Llauca, one of the defense attorneys, welcomed the court's decision but expressed little confidence it would be final. She criticized what she saw as a pattern of using the criminal justice system to target Mapuche people, particularly those asserting claims to ancestral lands. The company, she suggested, would likely pursue the case further, taking it to Chile's Supreme Court in hopes of a different outcome. Llauca framed the repeated legal challenges as part of a broader historical effort to criminalize indigenous activism and suppress legitimate demands for the return of traditional territories.
The case now sits in a precarious equilibrium. The acquittal has been twice affirmed—once by the trial court, once by the appeals court. Yet the company's willingness to keep fighting suggests the matter may not be resolved until the nation's highest court weighs in. For the 18 communards, the legal vindication offers some measure of relief, but the prospect of further litigation looms. The case illustrates a recurring tension in Chile's south: disputes over land and resources that pit indigenous communities against private interests, filtered through a criminal justice system that critics argue has historically favored the latter.
Citas Notables
This is a pattern of criminalizing Mapuche people for being Mapuche, particularly in their struggle to survive as an indigenous people and their legitimate demands for the return of ancestral lands.— Orietta Llauca, defense attorney
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the company keep fighting after the trial court acquitted all 18 defendants?
Because the evidence wasn't there to convict them, but the company believed the court got it wrong. A nullity appeal is a way to say the process itself was flawed, not just the judgment.
And the appeals court agreed the evidence was insufficient?
Yes. They looked at what the prosecutors presented and said it didn't prove participation. The company lost that round too.
So why does the defense attorney think this will go to the Supreme Court?
Because companies with resources can keep appealing. The Supreme Court is the last stop. If the company believes it has a chance there, it will try.
Is there a pattern here beyond just this case?
According to the defense, yes. She sees this as part of a longer history of using criminal charges against Mapuche people, especially those fighting for land rights. The theft charge becomes a tool to discredit or punish indigenous activism.
Did the court find any evidence at all linking them to the theft?
The source doesn't say the evidence was fabricated or obviously wrong. It just wasn't enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That's the standard.
What happens if the Supreme Court agrees with the company?
Then the acquittal could be overturned and the case sent back for retrial. But that's speculative. For now, the 18 are acquitted, twice over.