27 a circumstance if it is sufficiently supported by the evidence already presented. The court may waive the evidence if it is offered to prove a known fact. Article 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Evaluation Budget). For the evidence to be evaluated by the court, its practice must be carried out in strict compliance with the provisions of this Code. While article 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the evidence admissible at trial is that provided for in the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure and other laws of the Republic. The parties may also use other evidence that is not expressly prohibited by law and that they consider to be conducive to the proof of their claims. These funds are promoted and disposed of accordingly applying the provisions of the Civil Code on the means of similar means of proof and, failing that, in the manner indicated by the judge. Not all expert opinions need to be approved, for admission it is essential that the inherent requirements concerning the usefulness of the medium, the relevance of the fact to be proved, the legality of the means and the required formality are met; Similarly, the extrinsic requirements that correspond to the procedure in general must be fulfilled, such as: the procedural possibility, the legitimacy of the applicant and the competence of the official to admit. The admission order, either because it allows or refuses to admit evidence, has an appeal that it listens to with a single effect. An opponent may appeal if the disputed evidence has been admitted or by a person who has been rejected.
In the event of silence, i.e. the judge does not decide on admission, this can be understood as a denial of justice provided for in Article 19, in which case the parties have the right to apply to the superior (Article 399 CCP). If the judge silences the statement of any of the proposed evidence, it should not be assumed that it has been admitted. In these cases, the expert resource is carried out on facts that cannot be estimated by the judge, through a judicial inspection (expertise in ballistic, graphotechnical, graphological, dactyloscopic comparison, accounting expertise, poisoning of a person, among others) On this point, we would like to emphasize that on a global reading of Pérez Sarmiento, it seems that this author has a conceptual confusion between the, what a document is and what a document is. Supporting documents and proof of reports. In this context, it is important to clarify that all evidence is documented, but not all evidence is documentary evidence. For example, the whole process is contained in a “document” or an accumulation of “documents”, which are the procedural protocols that make up “the file” and because, although oral hearings are held, there are many scripted actions that are a physical support of the process, but they are simple and in any case procedural documents, but not evidence documents or documentary evidence. Another aspect that must be taken into account is that the documentary evidence already exists before the trial, is prior and the evidence of the reports is the written response of a public or private legal entity to a court order, to the data already existing to such a request, which are in their files, registers or books or which in any way possess this informant.
As can be seen, the solution proposed by Pérez Sarmiento of simply reading the expert`s opinion at the hearing does not correspond to what the written evidence or the evidence in the reports is. Abstract: By providing a descriptive and analytical examination of evidence of expertise in teaching, its regulation in the COPP and national jurisprudence, this document aims to address the controversy over the need for the expert`s appearance in the debate of the oral proceedings in the light of the principles of criminal evidence closely related to this controversy, to approach. such as control, opposition, orality and immediacy. Pérez also relies on the idea that expertise is mainly carried out in the preparatory or research phase and/or otherwise in the intermediate phase, leaving only the experts` oral report for the experiment (2003: 253). In this line of reasoning, he describes how expert opinions or expert opinions carried out during the preparatory phase enter the oral proceedings in two ways: 18 In a criminal trial, experts give no reference to the events or facts of a case, but only certain opinions on what the court submits to the expert report. In this sense, Freites, V (2009) in a special degree thesis to decide on the degree of specialist in criminal and criminological sciences, carried out at the Catholic University Andrés Bello with the title: Incidents of illegal evidence in the Venezuelan criminal trial, which was framed in a descriptive monographic way. In accordance with the principle of the legality of evidence, evidence obtained subject to the rules laid down by law may be included in the proceedings, which presupposes compliance with the essential formalities laid down for the taking of evidence and for the taking of evidence before the judge in order to justify his conviction; That is, an illegally acquired test, such as an illegally installed test, would be illegal. It should be noted that the fundamental objective of criminal proceedings is to establish the truthfulness of the facts by legal means and fairness in the application of the law, to which the judge must adapt when making his decision in accordance with the norm. But this search for truth is not an absolute value, but has been limited by the ethical and legal values of the rule of law.
It is assumed that the work cited and this report have an important relationship, since the two take into account the fact that, for the inclusion of evidence in the criminal process, the guidelines set out in the standard must be followed and, if not, they are classified as illegal and, therefore, this is not assessed by the judge. For his part, Meléndez, Y. (2008), in a document submitted to decide on the degree of magister scientniarum at the Universidad Centro Occidental Lisandro Alvarado, entitled: The performance of the auditor in judicial proceedings as forensic experts on the economic crimes of money laundering in the Venezuelan banking system, he framed in a descriptive and documentary way All the people who provide the expertise, must participate in hearings before the courts in order to ratify what appears in their corresponding reports, which must be limited to what is stated in the experts, and may under no circumstances express an opinion other than that expressed in the report.
