The prosecutor’s office rejected on Friday the request by Facundo Moyano’s defense to lift the restrictive measures against the former deputy, who remains charged with minor injuries and unlawful deprivation of liberty in a context of gender-based violence against his partner, Candela Arizaga. Thus, the restraining order within a 300-meter radius and the prohibition of any type of contact will continue.
The measure remains in place after Arizaga testified before the court and denied having suffered violence from Moyano, in addition to publicly requesting that the restrictions be lifted in order to resume the relationship with her partner.
The defense’s request and the prosecutor’s stance
Lawyer Miguel Molina had requested the cessation of the measures after the statement of the 23-year-old model, arguing that the young woman stated on two occasions during the proceedings that her treatment with Moyano was «cordial and respectful» and that she had never experienced verbal or physical violence from the former deputy. The lawyer also noted that Arizaga had defined the relationship as a «courtship,» which, according to him, was also corroborated by Moyano when he testified before the prosecutor’s office.
Furthermore, Molina argued that Arizaga’s statements were made in a state of understanding and awareness, with a «cooperative and calm» attitude, according to what health workers recorded when the young woman presented herself at Pirovano Hospital. In this context, the lawyer had noted that the model stated that she did not want to maintain the restrictive measures imposed against Moyano and that her intention was to resume the relationship with him. Molina had considered that, although it might be premature to order the dismissal of the proceedings given the alleged absence of a criminal act, it was appropriate to review the precautionary measures that may have been issued.
Now, the prosecutor’s office has decided to maintain the restrictions while the case continues.
Candela Arizaga’s version and her lawyer
In statements to América TV, Candela Arizaga explained that she has few memories of what happened during the early morning when police intervened. According to her account, that night she had attended the stadium with Facundo Moyano and, once they returned to the apartment, she suffered a crisis. «I remember very little and nothing,» she said. The young woman explained that she lost control of the situation and reiterated that she is currently focused on her recovery.
Accompanied by her lawyer Roberto Herrera, the influencer stated that she experienced a psychotic episode and denied that Facundo Moyano had exercised violence against her. «The problem was never Facundo, he didn’t do anything to me,» she said as she left the courthouse. She also surprised by expressing her hope to meet the former deputy again. «I hope to see him soon,» she said. Along the same lines, her lawyer confirmed that they also requested the lifting of the restraining order against Moyano.
The incident in Belgrano and the imposed measures
Facundo Moyano regained his freedom after being detained for the incident that occurred in a building in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Belgrano. As a condition for his release, the court imposed a series of precautionary measures, including the prohibition of contact with Candela Arizaga and a restraining order while the investigation progressed. Now, the defense seeks to have these measures annulled.
The case involving Facundo Moyano and Candela Arizaga could take a new turn in the coming hours. After the former deputy regained his freedom under a series of restrictive measures, his lawyer announced that they have already requested the lifting of these conditions and assured that, if the court grants the request, both could resume contact.
Documents and sources consulted
For this article, two journalistic sources were cross-checked: one from Crónica and another from La Derecha Diario. The first reports on the prosecutor’s rejection of the defense’s request, while the second focuses on the statements of the defense lawyer and Arizaga herself. Both agree that the defense requested the lifting of the restrictions and that Arizaga denied having suffered violence. However, the Crónica source indicates that the prosecutor’s office rejected the request, while the La Derecha Diario source does not mention this rejection, but merely reproduces the statements of the lawyer and the model. This difference is relevant: one source does not automatically confirm the other, and the lack of mention of the rejection in the second could be because it was published before the prosecutor’s decision was known.
Additionally, documents and judicial proceedings mentioned in the sources were identified, although direct access to them was not available. Below, it is detailed what each document establishes according to the sources, what it does not establish, and what questions remain open.
| Document | What it establishes | What it does not establish | Open questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ongoing judicial file | Charges against Facundo Moyano for minor injuries and unlawful deprivation of liberty in a context of gender-based violence. Precautionary measures: 300-meter restraining order and prohibition of contact. | It does not establish the existence of violence, as the case is in the investigation stage. | What is the exact procedural status? Are there other pieces of evidence? |
| Candela Arizaga’s statement before the prosecutor’s office | According to the defense, Arizaga denied having suffered violence and described the treatment as «cordial and respectful.» According to her lawyer, she also requested the lifting of the restrictions. | It does not establish whether the statement was spontaneous or influenced. | What evidentiary value will the judge give to this statement? |
| Report from health workers at Pirovano Hospital | According to the defense, the report indicates that Arizaga presented herself in a state of understanding and awareness, with a «cooperative and calm» attitude. | It does not establish the full content of the report or whether it refers to a specific episode. | What diagnosis was made? Is there evidence of a psychotic episode? |
| Defense request to lift the measures | The defense requested the cessation of the restrictions based on Arizaga’s statement. | It does not establish the full grounds of the request. | What additional arguments did the defense present? |
| Prosecutor’s resolution rejecting the request | According to Crónica, the prosecutor’s office rejected the request and maintained the restrictions. | It does not establish the grounds for the rejection. | What were the prosecutor’s reasons for maintaining the measures? |
Value module
In this article, no numerical calculations are made, as the available information is qualitative in nature. The only figures mentioned are the 300-meter restriction radius, which remains unchanged, and Candela Arizaga’s age (23 years), according to Crónica. No units or currencies are converted, as there is no economic data in the material.
What to follow
The key point to follow is the prosecutor’s resolution rejecting the defense’s request. It will be important to know the grounds for that decision, as well as the progress of the criminal investigation. It is also worth following whether the defense appeals the decision or presents new elements. Candela Arizaga’s statement and any potential change in her version could influence the course of the case. Finally, it is relevant to observe whether new precautionary measures are issued or modifications to existing ones.
Fuentes consultadas
El Sereno contrastó las fuentes enlazadas y añadió contexto, comparación o análisis documental. Las fuentes primarias están identificadas. La nota no se presenta como investigación de campo ni como entrevista propia, salvo indicación expresa.
Comentarios