Impacto de la sentencia anticipada en el derecho a la prueba en procesos civiles de única instancia en Colombia
Cargando...
Fecha
2025
Autores
Reyes Guerrero, Loraine Margarita
Pereira Peñate, Iván Enrique
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Ediciones Universidad Simón Bolívar
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales
Resumen
En la presente investigación se pretende realizar un análisis exhaustivo acerca del impacto que genera la sentencia anticipada (SA) al garantizar el derecho fundamental a la prueba en procesos civiles de única instancia proferidas en el Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho (ESDD).
En ese orden de ideas, se parte de una exploración con enfoque descriptivo, variante de una revisión jurisprudencial y un trabajo de campo aplicando una entrevista cualitativa semiestructurada en los diferentes juzgados civiles municipales y de pequeñas causas y competencia múltiple del municipio de Sincelejo (Sucre), con la finalidad de indagar si los jueces vulneran o no el derecho fundamental a la prueba en procesos civiles de única instancia cuando
cumplen el deber de dictar sentencia anticipada con fundamento en la causal segunda del artículo 278 del Código General del Proceso (CGP), de tal suerte que se cumplan uno de los más grandes retos de la justicia que ha sido siempre mantener un equilibrio entre dos dimensiones a saber, por un lado, dispensar una justicia pronta y oportuna, y por el otro, que esta sea respetuosa de los derechos de las partes involucradas. Así pues, el numeral segundo de la citada norma, señala que el juez puede dictar sentencia anticipada cuando “no hubiere pruebas por practicar”, bien sea porque el litigio no ofrezca un debate probatorio, o porque este sea vano o inútil para la decisión. Es así como la ley y la jurisprudencia reconocen que pueden llegar a pretermitirse instancias probatorias del proceso, con la finalidad de optimizar la economía procesal, sin que ello signifique un detrimento de los derechos sustanciales y procesales de las partes en litigio.
This research aims to carry out an exhaustive analysis of the impact generated by the advance ruling (AS) in guaranteeing the fundamental right to evidence in single-instance civil processes pronounced in the Social and Democratic State of Law -ESDD-. In this order of ideas, we start from an exploration with a descriptive approach, a variant of a jurisprudential review and a field work applying a semi-structured qualitative interview in the different municipal civil courts and small cases and multiple jurisdiction of the municipality of Sincelejo (Sucre), with the purpose of investigating whether or not judges violate the fundamental right to evidence in single- instance civil processes when they fulfill the duty to issue an early ruling based on the second cause of article 278 of the Code. General Process -CGP-, in such a way that one of the greatest challenges of justice is met, which has always been to maintain a balance between two dimensions, namely, on the one hand, dispensing prompt and timely justice, and on the other, that it be respectful of the rights of the parties involved. Thus, the second paragraph of the aforementioned rule indicates that the judge can issue an early ruling when “there is no evidence to be tested”, either because the litigation does not offer an evidentiary debate, or because this is vain or useless for the decision. This is how the law and jurisprudence recognize that evidentiary instances of the process may be pre-terminated, in order to optimize procedural economy, without this meaning a detriment to the substantial and procedural rights of the parties in litigation.
This research aims to carry out an exhaustive analysis of the impact generated by the advance ruling (AS) in guaranteeing the fundamental right to evidence in single-instance civil processes pronounced in the Social and Democratic State of Law -ESDD-. In this order of ideas, we start from an exploration with a descriptive approach, a variant of a jurisprudential review and a field work applying a semi-structured qualitative interview in the different municipal civil courts and small cases and multiple jurisdiction of the municipality of Sincelejo (Sucre), with the purpose of investigating whether or not judges violate the fundamental right to evidence in single- instance civil processes when they fulfill the duty to issue an early ruling based on the second cause of article 278 of the Code. General Process -CGP-, in such a way that one of the greatest challenges of justice is met, which has always been to maintain a balance between two dimensions, namely, on the one hand, dispensing prompt and timely justice, and on the other, that it be respectful of the rights of the parties involved. Thus, the second paragraph of the aforementioned rule indicates that the judge can issue an early ruling when “there is no evidence to be tested”, either because the litigation does not offer an evidentiary debate, or because this is vain or useless for the decision. This is how the law and jurisprudence recognize that evidentiary instances of the process may be pre-terminated, in order to optimize procedural economy, without this meaning a detriment to the substantial and procedural rights of the parties in litigation.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Sentencia Anticipada (SA), Derecho a la prueba, Procesos Civiles de Única Instancia, Estado Social y Democrático de Derechos (ESDD), Código General del Proceso (CGP)
