La prueba científica en el proceso judicial desde la perspectiva de la búsqueda de la verdad procesal
Date
2022-04-05
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
El objetivo del trabajo es analizar si existe o no una sobrevaloración de la prueba
científica por parte de los jueces y con ello establecer si se ha creado un mito de
cientificidad procesal en la búsqueda de la verdad.
Desde un enfoque cualitativo, el estudio aplica el método de análisis de fuente
documental, principalmente de la doctrina y de la jurisprudencia nacional y comparada,
la misma que permite contrastar los hallazgos y resultados.
En ese sentido, se concluye que el juez peruano con una limitada formación científica,
integral, holística y argumentativa, depende y confía casi exclusivamente de los
resultados de los peritajes que se le ofrecen en los casos, sin realizar una valoración o
motivación al respecto, lo que podría significar una renuncia al concepto de que el juez
es perito de peritos, y dejando que los peritos o expertos sean quienes, en la práctica,
decidan y resuelvan el caso, poniendo en riesgo el derecho fundamental al debido proceso
y la búsqueda de la verdad objetiva y material.
The objective of this work is to address whether an overvaluation of scientific evidence by judges exists or does not. Thereby, this would address the creation of the myth of scientific based procedures in the search of truth. From a qualitative approach, this study uses an analysis method. Specifically, the doctrine and national and comparative jurisprudence, which allows to contrast the findings and results. This research shows that Peruvian judges with low scientific, holistic and argumentative education rely on the result of the expert reports given to them in cases excluding a further evaluation which results in the resignation of the role that the judges play as peritus peritorum (expert of experts) and, even more severe, leaving the experts to be the ones who, in practice, decide and resolve the process, which compromise the process and the search for objective and material truth.
The objective of this work is to address whether an overvaluation of scientific evidence by judges exists or does not. Thereby, this would address the creation of the myth of scientific based procedures in the search of truth. From a qualitative approach, this study uses an analysis method. Specifically, the doctrine and national and comparative jurisprudence, which allows to contrast the findings and results. This research shows that Peruvian judges with low scientific, holistic and argumentative education rely on the result of the expert reports given to them in cases excluding a further evaluation which results in the resignation of the role that the judges play as peritus peritorum (expert of experts) and, even more severe, leaving the experts to be the ones who, in practice, decide and resolve the process, which compromise the process and the search for objective and material truth.
Description
Keywords
Prueba (Derecho)--Perú, Debido proceso, Peritaje (Derecho procesal), Prueba pericial, Procedimiento penal--Perú
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess