Líneas jurisprudenciales sobre manejo de declaraciones anteriores en el sistema penal acusatorio : ¿todas las declaraciones anteriores que se pretenden aducir en el juicio oral a través de la policía judicial son prueba de referencia?

Abstract

When discussing oral trials, the concepts of imediacy and contradiction/confrontation take on singular importance. In other words, only the informacion directly percieved by the trial judge and subject to the rigors of the counterpart can be consiered evidence. When for one reason or another, a witness is unable to testify during trial, or when s/he changes her/his account, the witnesses prior statements become relevant, either as hearsay or as additional or supplemental evidence. In the first of two scenarios, the prior statement has a reduced probative value while in the second scenario, the prior statement is admitted as supplemental or additional evidence and therefore can be evaluated as actual evidence, not merely supplemental or additional evidence. In many cases, an intermediary or middle ground exists where in a witness refuses to testify at trial thereby making that witness present yet unavailable. Under those circumstances, the witnesses prior statements can only be admitted as hearsay according to the existing jurisprudence. In Sentence 26411 of 2007, the Supreme Court, separately defended the theory of supplemental or additional evidence, a theory that has never been supported.