Maribel Guardia’s legal team said on October 5 that it had not been notified of any protection measures in favor of Imelda Tuñón, even as Tuñón’s defense said it had obtained them against Guardia, Marco Chacón and Alonso Beceiro. The dispute now centers on whether any authority actually imposed those measures and whether the other side was given a chance to respond.
That question matters because the conflict between Maribel Guardia and Imelda Tuñón has intensified in the days before October 5, and both sides are now talking past each other on a basic legal point: whether a formal act took place or only an assertion of one. Beceiro said his side knew only what the media and lawyers had reported about a supposed hearing, not what any authority had communicated directly.
Beceiro said Maribel Guardia’s side had received no notification from any authority and had therefore been denied the right of defense that every person is entitled to. He also said that, under jurisprudence, the measures would not have any effect if notice was not given before the act, because the defense had to be informed ahead of time to appear and protect its rights.
The friction is sharper because Beceiro said the legal team did not intend to take action against Imelda Tuñón at that moment, while also accusing her of contradicting herself in every interview. He linked that line of attack to Tuñón’s own statement that she lied to psychiatrists to obtain medications that the late Julián Figueroa would take, a disclosure that pushed the dispute into a more public and more volatile phase.
For now, the unanswered question is not whether the feud is real. It is whether any binding measure was ever formally put in place, and if so, whether the parties were notified in a way that gives those measures legal force.
