La prueba ilícita en el proceso penal: La regla de exclusión

Abstract

El derecho a la prueba no es un derecho absoluto sino que está sometido a determinados límites y en particular al respeto de los derechos fundamentales. El proceso penal tiene por misión no solamente el descubrimiento y represión de los culpables, sino el de hacerlo con absoluto respeto a sus derechos, so pena de quedar imposibilitado el castigo en caso contrario. El trabajo consiste fundamentalmente en desarrollar el derecho de la prueba ilícita como límite en el proceso probatorio penal y como mecanismo de protección de los derechos fundamentales frente a posibles vulneraciones. También estudiaremos la regla de exclusión de la prueba ilícita así como su eficacia refleja también conocida como la doctrina de los frutos del árbol envenenado y nos detendremos en particular en las excepciones que han ido surgiendo a la aplicación de esta regla y como nuestros tribunales han interpretado esta regla que son las siguientes: a) La Buena Fe en la Actuación policial b) El descubrimiento inevitable c) El hallazgo casual d) La confesión voluntaria e) La obtención por particulares El derecho de la prueba ilícita o la prueba prohibida ha suscitado gran interés en la doctrina procesalista debido a que, no solo representa una de las problemáticas más complejas de la doctrina procesal, sino que, es también un tema que atrae la atención de juristas y del público en general dado que se alude reiteradamente a la posibilidad de que el autor de un hecho delictivo quede impune por los llamados “tecnicismos jurídicos”.

The right to evidence is not an absolute right but is subject to certain limits and in particular respect for fundamental rights. The criminal process has as its mission not only the discovery and repression of the culprits, but to do so with absolute respect for their rights, under penalty of being unable to punish them otherwise. The work basically consists of developing the law of illegal evidence as a limit in the criminal evidence process and as a mechanism for the protection of fundamental rights against possible violations. We will also study the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, as well as its reflected effectiveness, also known as the doctrine of the fruits of the poisoned tree, and we will focus in particular on the exceptions that have arisen from the application of this rule and how our courts have interpreted this rule which are the following: The right of illegal evidence or prohibited evidence has aroused great interest in procedural doctrine because it not only represents one of the most complex problems of procedural doctrine, but it is also a subject that attracts the attention of lawyers and of the general public, given that the possibility of the perpetrator of a criminal act going unpunished for the so-called “legal technicalities” is repeatedly alluded to. The right of illegal evidence or prohibited evidence has aroused great interest in procedural doctrine because it not only represents one of the most complex problems of procedural doctrine, but it is also a subject that attracts the attention of lawyers and of the general public, given that the possibility of the perpetrator of a criminal act going unpunished for the so-called “legal technicalities” is repeatedly alluded to. a) Good Faith in Police Action b) The inevitable discovery c) The chance find d) Voluntary confession e) Obtaining by individuals The right of illegal evidence or prohibited evidence has aroused great interest in procedural doctrine because it not only represents one of the most complex problems of procedural doctrine, but it is also a subject that attracts the attention of lawyers and of the general public, given that the possibility of the perpetrator of a criminal act going unpunished for the so-called “legal technicalities” is repeatedly alluded to.