La admisibilidad de prueba nueva a la luz de la sana crítica y derechos constitucionales dentro del procedimiento ordinario.

Abstract

The purpose of this investigative work has been to carry out a study of sound criticism as a criterion for the admissibility of new evidence announced by a procedural party in an ordinary procedure. Through the doctrinal study, everything related to the guarantees that precautionary the inclusion of sound criticism in an oral system has been collected, but it was also established that it does not affect the principle of estoppel. In this sense, it is important to highlight that the law and jurisprudence are also reviewed to determine the rights involved in the application for admission to a new test, as well as the repercussions in the procedural and constitutional sphere that decides when the judge uses sound criticism. . In the same way, it was sought to outline the criteria or parameters on which sound criticism is based from a doctrinal perspective, in such a way that it helps to understand its legal nature, and with this, end up defining a recommendation for a bill so that the sound criticism is regulated. Finally, the particularity of subjectivity was evident, how sound criticism is found according to current legal and jurisprudential regulations, therefore, it is necessary to specify that it is required to regulate it with minimum considerations, but above all that at the time of issuing a criterion It must be motivated how these criteria were met in the decision to admit or reject a new test.