Bibliographic citations
Gibaja, A., (2024). La prueba de oficio como deber de los jueces: hacia una mejor tutela del debido proceso en el proceso civil peruano [Trabajo académico, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27666
Gibaja, A., La prueba de oficio como deber de los jueces: hacia una mejor tutela del debido proceso en el proceso civil peruano [Trabajo académico]. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27666
@misc{renati/12898,
title = "La prueba de oficio como deber de los jueces: hacia una mejor tutela del debido proceso en el proceso civil peruano",
author = "Gibaja Gaona, Alan Fabricio",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
Ex officio evidence is one of the most controversial topics in Procedural Law, since its performance can be seen as a useful tool for resolving the conflict in accordance with the law based on the search for the truth or, on the contrary, it can be seen as a violation of rights and procedural guarantees. Although the current Civil Procedure Code regulates ex officio evidence, it can be seen that said regulation is based on the mixed purpose of the Peruvian civil process: the resolution of the conflict and social pacification. Thus, it is understood the position taken by the legislator to accept the performance of the ex officio test but imposing a series of limits and requirements on said performance. Added to the above, we find the binding rules contained in the Tenth Civil Cassation Plenary that seek to clarify certain important points of the regulation of ex officio evidence at the civil level; However, the first rule establishes the nature of the performance of this unofficial evidence, highlighting that it is a power of the judge. However, this position implies a series of problems that violate due process: the excessive discretion of judges and the prohibition of declaring a sentence null and void due to the failure to use this unofficial means of proof, The present work seeks to address this problem regarding the nature of ex officio evidence with the objective of determining whether the nature of this procedural tool should be modified so that it is considered a duty of the judge. The conclusion we reach in this work is affirmative: ex officio evidence must be a duty of the judge, since it is the only way to protect the due right of the procedural parties in an adequate manner in accordance with the constitutionalization of the Law.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License