Supervening evidence

Abstract

The supervening evidence constitutes a fundamental element in the procedural sphere, since it allows the incorporation of new evidentiary means arising after the ordinary stage of offering evidence. Its inclusion seeks to guarantee the principle of material truth and the right to defense, being configured as an exceptional mechanism that strengthens substantial justice over merely formal justice. However, this type of evidence faces multiple challenges, both in its admission and its evaluation. Legal barriers, disparate criteria in jurisprudence, and the lack of normative uniformity in different legal systems generate tensions between procedural celerity and evidentiary fullness, affecting in many cases legal certainty and the predictability of rulings. The purpose of this article is to analyze the behavior, doctrinal evolution, comparative legislation and legal-procedural gaps surrounding supervening evidence, based on a qualitative approach, with a descriptive-interpretative design. Through the normative, jurisprudential and doctrinal review, it is identified the need to establish clear criteria on its procedural, timely admission and procedural limits, thus avoiding its abusive use or its arbitrary exclusion. It is concluded that, although supervening evidence is a key tool for the discovery of the truth in the judicial process, its effectiveness depends on a regulatory balance between evidentiary flexibility and procedural guarantees. Likewise, a line of reforms is proposed to strengthen its regulation, aimed at the equity and efficiency of the process.