From “Daddy Heart” to National Prosecutor Candidate: Angel Valencia Faced Arraigo and Arrest Warrant for Non-Payment of Alimony

Hours after the political whirlwind that has shaken La Moneda, among other points, for the somersault that President Boric gave himself at the last minute when proposing the lawyer Ángel Valencia for ratification as National Prosecutor before the Senate, to the already known judicial representations that the candidate Valencia has made of defendants linked to corruption issues, violation of Human Rights and sexual crimes against women, now there are precedents of the hard confrontation he had in Family Courts with his former wife, who sued him for non-payment of alimony for his three children, a situation for which, at the time, the Second Family Court decreed his arraigo and his arrest.
The name of the lawyer, a letter chosen by President Gabriel Boric to lead the Public Ministry, will be defended by the Government in the Constitution Commission of the Senate this Monday, January 9 at 11.00 a.m., and then voted in the Chamber at 4:00 p.m. Below, a chronology of the events that involved Angel Valencia as a debtor of alimony.
The case
A document dated 18 October 2006 states that a request for payment of maintenance made by the lawyer María Díaz Paredes, on behalf of Vivian Massardo Carvajal, stating that Ángel Valencia Vásquez did not comply with the alimony fixed by the court, together with requesting the dispatch of an arrest warrant against the defendant, for the difference owed ($4,261,607).
Ángel Valencia was sued for alimony since October 2001 by his ex-spouse Vivian Massardo, on the grounds that “he does not provide what is necessary for the adequate subsistence of his three children.”

Through briefs presented by the law firm Espina, Zepeda, Acosta, Rodríguez y Tavolari, of which Ángel Valencia was a part, an attempt was made to object to both the liquidation and the arrest, requesting that the figure be corrected, arguing that he had made more economic benefits than those he had received as a sentence, specifying that his children were also affiliated to his Isapre plan and that the plaintiff used a vehicle of which he was the owner. And, along with stating that he maintained a good relationship with his children, whom he took on vacation to the United States (Disney), Valencia justified that he had paid, even in excess, the alimony owed.
Valencia lashed out at Massardo, requested that his children be the mother’s burden in his health plan and asked for the restitution of the referred vehicle.
On 22 February 2007, the Second Family Court, composed of substitute judge Olga Chamorro Navia, decided to maintain the arrest, detention and detention requested from the Investigative Police and the General Treasury of the Republic, together with the suspension of Valencia’s driver’s license.

Valencia delivered to the Family Court a payment formula for the pensions owed. On March 19, 2007, considering the background described above, he proposed to deliver the car as payment.
Subsequently, on April 16, 2007, Vivian Massardo requested, in order to obtain that the defendant pay the difference of what is owed by way of maintenance, the withholding of the Annual Refund of the Income of taxes of that year, which is practiced annually by the General Treasury of the Republic. It was argued that the defendant had taken “all possible actions to ensure that the court-fixed pension payment was not fully complied with” and late payments were made. Consequently, on 19 April 2007, a request was made for a reassessment of the pensions owed, following the liquidation of October 2006, requesting a new arrest warrant against the defendant. This was also objected to by Valencia’s defense, from where they argued that his client did not oppose the withholding of the tax refund.

The liquidation dated July 30, 2007 showed a balance against the debtor of $ 5,495,395 and Valencia’s defense requested that the amount be corrected again, ensuring that there was no breach of the obligation to pay alimony and pointing out that the debt originated from a historical “difference” of readjustment that was “accepted” by the plaintiff, who, according to Valencia’s defense, did not rule on the payment plan offered.

The defense of Valencia again referred to the fact that the plaintiff retained “unjustifiably” the vA statement owned by the lawyer, who stressed on August 3, 2007 that when practicing in criminal matters as a lawyer “he cannot appear with decreed constraints.”
In response, on August 7, 2007, the Second Family Court of Santiago – this time composed of the titular judge Ana María Fuentes Medina – ruled, with respect to the objection of Valencia’s defense, that “there is no place for inadmissibility in view of the fact that there is no settlement of debt to which the defendant refers”, adding “Be accompanied by citation”.
This gave way to the justice to maintain that Valencia paid since 2001 a maintenance allowance “without updating the amount of the parameter used”, that is, the minimum monthly non-remunerational income, although it specified that “the payment was not objected by the food in a timely manner, producing the difference that accounts for the settlement practiced and that has motivated the constraints that are questioned, although the pension has been paid periodically and there has been no situation of abandonment”. Therefore, it was appropriate to seek other forms of solution that, according to the court, necessarily required the holding of a hearing with the concurrence of the parties.
On September 20 of that year, through an appeal for amparo, the Court decided to annul the coercion (read arrest warrant and arraigo against Valencia.

Thus arrives on October 12, 2007 and Valencia filed a lawsuit for reduction of maintenance against his spouse, asking that the decreed alimony of 12 minimum monthly income for non-remunerational purposes be reduced, equivalent on that date to $ 1,114,764, fixing the pension in the amount of six incomes or the figure determined by the court “in any case less than that originally fixed”.

Valencia argued that Massardo received via fees the sum of $ 550,000 per month, however, after the divorce process and subsequent lawsuit, his liquid income would have increased to $ 1,500,000 as contract personnel of a public service. Massardo is a psychologist and until then worked as head of the organizational development and human resources unit of the national direction of Sernac, with grade 4 remuneration in the contracted plant.
According to Valencia’s request, this circumstance alone would be enough to proportionally reduce the decreed food. In contrast, he maintained that his income had not changed and he even received a lower income, after moving from a job to fees in the Ministry of Justice, to the law firm that represented him. In addition, he argued that Massardo went from living in the apartment of his children’s grandparents to owning a house, while he was “rebuilding his emotional life” and contributing to pay a dividend with his current partner (María José Taladriz Eguiluz). The latter was supported in a report delivered on December 3, 2009. Previously, on April 3, 2008, the preparatory hearing was held with the assistance of the plaintiff, who ratified the complaint.
The answer to the above was evacuated “in absentia” of the defendant, the call for conciliation was frustrated, the object of the trial and facts to be proven were fixed, the evidence was offered and the parties were summoned to a new trial hearing.
Thus, the court – this time in charge of the titular judge of the Second Family Court of Santiago Pedro Maldonado Escudero – ruled on the reduction requested by Valencia on December 18, 2009, granting the request, fixing the amount of alimony in favor of his three children in five minimum remunerational income. ($825,000 in that year), which should be paid through withholding from the employer (the law firm Espina, Zepeda, Acosta y Cía. Ltda.).
Finally, Valencia agreed with the plaintiff, the mother of his children, in a conciliation hearing.
From Urresti and Chahuán
As is public knowledge, Valencia’s candidacy has support from both democratic socialism – particularly the PS – and the opposition, through a close and long-standing link with National Renewal (Alberto Espina included). In fact, Senators Alfonso de Urresti (PS) and Francisco Chahuán (RN) are part of the group that supports him in the Senate.
During the discussion of Law 21,484 on parental responsibility and effective payment of alimony debts, regarding the approved National Registry of Debtors of Alimony, Senator Alfonso De Urresti (PS) said that “hopefully disqualifications to positions of popular election will be legislated throughout the line, but also those related to appointment positions.”
“And there the Council of Senior Public Management will play an indicative role: if any candidate is on this registry, he simply does not qualify. And as for the candidates for positions public that do not go directly through that body, that are also evaluated, “said De Urresti, on that occasion.
Likewise, in the same instance, Senator Francisco Chahuán (RN) was “absolutely in favor of these disabilities.” In fact, he commented that he presented a project on the disqualifications so that debtors of alimony can exercise public office and are enshrined in the law.
“And our Fundamental Charter should also be modified, because a debtor of food cannot be President of the Republic, nor parliamentarian, nor one who exercises violence against women or gender violence,” said the RN senator.

Last Diligence Angel Val… by El Mostrador

Follow us on

Original source in Spanish