Valdivia responded that at the time the Carabineros passed by his home, in the middle of the morning, he was sleeping, so he did not realize that the uniformed officers were going to carry out an inspection.
The Eastern Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office reported that they will appeal the Justice’s decision not to access preventive detention for Jorge Valdivia, after he realized that the former soccer player had violated his nightly house arrest.
According to the Public Ministry, members of the 47th Carabineros Police Station of Los Domínicos indicated to the 8th Guarantee Court of Santiago that They did not find the now sports commentator at his home after passing by at 4:35 a.m. on November 21.
In view of these facts, the Eastern Prosecutor’s Office will ask that Jorge Valdivia return to preventive detention, after being reformed for rape.
However, in the program It must be said! from Channel 13 stated that Valdivia ruled out these accusations of having violated the precautionary measure, stating that lSecurity cameras show him entering his home before beginning his house arrest.
Along these lines, Valdivia stressed that At the time when Carabineros passed by his home, in the middle of the morning, he was sleeping, Therefore, he did not realize that the uniformed officers were going to carry out an inspection.
“I have strictly adhered to the schedule, unfortunately and unfortunately I could not or did not hear the bell better,” he said in a statement, which is why he gave his phone number to the uniformed officers so that they could contact him directly when they audit him.
The former National Team midfielder stressed that “I would be stupid if, having night house arrest, I went and escaped. What I need the least today is precisely these exhibitions.”
This article reports on an ongoing judicial process, so people identified as detained or charged should not be considered guilty or treated as such until they are convicted by a final sentence (Article 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Gender violence: if you are a victim or witness of economic, psychological, obstetric, physical or sexual violence, you can receive free and confidential guidance at number 1455 of the National Service for Women and Gender Equality (SernamEG). You can also call +569 9700 7000 or the Safe Report Phone: 600 400 0101. If you need psychological, social or legal support, these are the Women’s Centers throughout the country.
What are the legal implications of violating house arrest in criminal cases?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Legal Expert
Editor: Good morning, and thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent developments surrounding Jorge Valdivia. The Eastern Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office has announced plans to appeal a decision regarding Valdivia’s preventive detention after allegations of violating his house arrest. Can you provide some context on what led to this situation?
Expert: Good morning! Absolutely. Jorge Valdivia, a well-known former soccer player turned sports commentator, has been under a precautionary measure following serious allegations, including sexual assault. Recently, there was an incident where Carabineros, the Chilean police, conducted a routine check at Valdivia’s residence around 4:35 a.m. on November 21, where they found he was not at home.
Editor: That’s quite serious. What does the law say about preventive detention in cases like this?
Expert: Preventive detention is typically used to ensure that individuals do not flee or commit further crimes while their cases are pending. In Valdivia’s case, the prosecutor’s office believes that his absence during the police check constitutes a violation of his current restrictions. They are pushing for his return to preventive detention, arguing that it’s necessary to ensure compliance with legal obligations.
Editor: Valdivia has claimed that he was asleep at the time and insists he has adhered to his house arrest conditions. He asserts that security footage proves he was home before the enforcement of the measure. How does this defense impact the legal proceedings?
Expert: Valdivia’s defense hinges on establishing his adherence to the house arrest regimen. If security cameras can confirm his claim that he was indeed at home prior to the check, that could effectively counter the assertion of a violation. In legal terms, demonstrating that he was home could potentially weaken the prosecution’s case for preventive detention. However, the prosecutors will likely argue that regardless of his earlier presence, his absence during the check is significant.
Editor: It sounds like we’re in a complex situation. What implications do these developments have for Valdivia’s public image and career going forward?
Expert: This situation undoubtedly has significant ramifications. Public perception will largely be influenced by the legal outcomes, particularly in such serious allegations. If he is re-incarcerated, it could tarnish his reputation permanently, impacting his career, especially in media where public image is paramount. Conversely, if he successfully defends against these claims, he may be able to rehabilitate his image, but trust will need to be rebuilt over time.
Editor: Given the media’s role in reporting on high-profile cases like this, what responsibilities do journalists have in ensuring fair coverage?
Expert: Journalists must tread carefully, especially in cases involving sensitive allegations. It’s crucial to balance the public’s right to information with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Reporting must be factual, avoid sensationalism, and provide representation from both sides. Responsible journalism can play a vital role in public understanding and maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
Editor: Thank you for your insights. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds in the days to come.
Expert: Thank you for having me! It’s a critical case that raises important questions about legal rights, media responsibility, and public perception—one that is definitely worth following.