EXP 1993 2025 CONTINUACIÓN DE AUDIENCIA ÚNICA 2026 07 06 08 50 GMT 05 00 Recording Google Driv
Inicio de la Audiencia Única
Presentación de los Asistentes
- Carlos Alberto Vargas Ramos se presenta como asistente, proporcionando su DNI y domicilio en Huancayo.
- Aníbal Alejandro González Grande se identifica como abogado defensor de la parte demandante, compartiendo su información profesional.
- Juan Enrique Mantaripoma representa a Ingeniería para el Desarrollo S.A., confirmando su registro y datos relevantes.
- Edgar Pedro Lazo Soqualaya se presenta como parte codemandada, indicando su DNI.
- Abogado Fernández de Palacios reemplaza a Carlos Pérez Chamorro, reiterando que es una continuación del proceso.
Testigos Citados
- Se mencionan los nombres de los testigos citados: Freddy Barreto Puma, Rubén Balvin Yanko, Renzo David Cabrero Barreto y Javier Jesús Acosta Castro.
- Freddy Richard Barreto Poma proporciona su identificación y domicilio en El Tambo, Huancayo.
- Renzo David Cabrero Barreto también se presenta con sus datos personales y menciona a su abogada Elizabeth Rojas Montes.
- Elizabeth Lider Rogas Montes comparte su número de colegiatura y domicilio procesal en Huancayo.
- Kathy Jacqueline Belli Ramos indica su DNI y dirección en San Agustín de Cajas.
Desarrollo del Proceso Judicial
Procedimientos Iniciales
- La juez aclara que los testigos no pueden presenciar la audiencia hasta que les corresponda declarar.
- Se menciona un escrito presentado por Rubén Balvin respecto a la asistencia en esta audiencia.
- La juez solicita al abogado Edgardo Pedro Lazo Socoalaya que revise el documento presentado por Balvin.
- Los testigos son instruidos para poner sus números telefónicos en el chat para ser llamados cuando sea necesario.
- Se reconoce un retraso técnico en el sistema mientras se gestiona el traslado del escrito.
Juramento de Testigos
- La juez pide a todos los testigos encender sus cámaras para proceder con el juramento colectivo.
- Cada testigo confirma su religión o creencias antes del juramento: católicos, evangélicos y agnósticos participan según sus convicciones.
- Los testigos juran decir la verdad durante las declaraciones; cada uno responde afirmativamente al juramento solicitado por la juez.
- Se recuerda a los testigos sobre las implicaciones legales del juramento falso conforme al Código Penal.
- La juez informa que los testigos deben desconectarse hasta que sean llamados nuevamente para declarar.
Cierre de la Sesión
Instrucciones Finales
- Los testigos son instruidos para desconectarse hasta recibir una llamada desde el chat con instrucciones sobre cuándo ingresar nuevamente a la audiencia.
Procedural Updates in Court Hearing
Attendance and Representation
- The judge requests the departure of Mr. Javier and Mr. Rubén Balvin from the session, leaving only the plaintiff and their lawyer present.
- The judge calls for the curator's presence, ensuring all parties are accounted for before proceeding with the hearing.
Document Verification
- A discussion arises regarding whether Dr. Hernández received a specific document; verification is requested to ensure all necessary materials are available for review.
- Dr. Landeo confirms he has not yet received a document, prompting a request for it to be sent via WhatsApp for expediency.
Communication of Submissions
- Confirmation that an email was sent containing a link shared in chat, indicating ongoing communication about submitted documents.
- The court plans to forward additional submissions to both the plaintiff's attorney and the curator for their awareness.
Review of Submitted Documents
Acknowledgment of Written Submissions
- The judge acknowledges receipt of written submissions from Mr. Rubén Balvin Yanko regarding his inability to connect due to travel but notes his voluntary appearance at the hearing.
Discussion on Testimonial Declaration
- Since Mr. Balvin is present despite his earlier request, there is no need to address his suspension request concerning testimonial declarations.
Legal Observations and Proceedings
No Objections Raised
- Both attorneys confirm they have no objections or observations regarding procedural matters discussed thus far.
Reminder on Protocol Compliance
- The judge reminds Dr. Mantari to activate his camera whenever he speaks during proceedings as part of courtroom protocol.
Evidence Admission Process
Pending Decisions on Evidence
- The previous session was suspended while awaiting decisions on evidence admission related to forensic handwriting analysis requested by co-defendant Lazo.
Notary Involvement
- Reference made to an official letter from notary Ronald Rómulo Venero Bocángel concerning a private sale contract’s authenticity dated November 22, 2010.
Appeal Against Evidence Ruling
Grounds for Appeal
- An appeal is filed against the decision declaring inadmissible certain evidence related to forensic analysis based on perceived legal irregularities.
Requirement for Written Justification
- The judge requests that any appeals be substantiated in writing within a specified timeframe before continuing with proceedings.
Contesting Document Authenticity
Claims of Falsified Documents
- Dr. Landeo presents claims against documents submitted by the opposing party, asserting they are false and ineffective based on prior obligations established since 2010.
Examination of Contract Validity
- There are allegations that contracts were created post-factum in relation to ongoing legal processes initiated back in 2014, raising questions about their legitimacy.
This structured summary captures key discussions and procedural elements from the transcript while providing timestamps for easy reference.
Legalization of Signatures and Payment Receipts
Lack of Payment Receipts
- The document in question lacks payment receipts, indicating that the legalization of signatures did not provide necessary information regarding payments.
- According to repeated jurisprudence, there was never possession by the supposed buyer, raising questions about the legitimacy of the transaction.
Corporate Authorization Requirements
- Under Article 115-125 of the General Law of Companies, any legal entity must obtain authorization from a board for actions outside its corporate purpose.
- A prior agreement is essential for disposing of assets, emphasizing procedural compliance.
Questionable Sale Price and Property Possession
Discrepancy in Sale Price
- The property valued at over 600,000 soles was sold for an insignificant amount exceeding 110,000 soles, suggesting potential fraud.
Delayed Possession Claims
- The buyer did not take possession until 2010 despite purchasing in November 2010; this raises doubts about their claim to ownership.
Mortgage and Ownership Issues
Subsequent Mortgage Actions
- Just months after the sale in 2010, the same property was mortgaged by the selling company, indicating it never left their asset pool.
Allegations of Bad Faith
- The transaction appears to be a private document aimed at circumventing due process with indications of collusion between seller and buyer.
Evidence Submission Challenges
Document Challenges Raised
- Multiple documents have been challenged as part of a broader strategy to undermine evidence presented by opposing counsel.
Importance of Procedural Integrity
- Emphasizing principles like economy and procedural solidarity when addressing challenges against various documents submitted during proceedings.
Financial Documentation Scrutiny
Examination of Financial Records
- Documents such as receipts for maintenance services were scrutinized; all were registered under institutional names rather than individual names.
Implications on Ownership Claims
- Evidence suggests that all utility bills were paid by the institution up until 2017, reinforcing claims that ownership remained with them throughout this period.
Response to Document Challenges
Defense Against Tacha Claims
- The defense argues that challenges lack legal grounding and focus instead on disputing core issues rather than document authenticity.
Relevance to Main Controversy
- Questions raised about simulated transactions do not suffice to exclude critical documents from consideration in ongoing litigation.
Efficacy and Evidentiary Value of Documents in Legal Proceedings
Importance of Document Evaluation
- The efficacy and evidentiary value of documents should be assessed at the time of issuing a sentence, alongside other evidence presented.
- Various documents submitted include official communications from SUNAT, judicial resolutions, tax documentation, notarial letters, maintenance receipts, lease contracts, and registration certificates.
Acknowledgment of Document Validity
- Documents were offered to substantiate different facts related to the property rights of the represented party; however, the opposing party may dispute their assigned value without rendering them false or excluding them from proceedings.
Verification by Notary
- The private sale contract was verified directly with Notary Venero, confirming signatures and seals as part of notarial duties performed on November 22, 2010. This verification supports the document's authenticity.
Historical Recognition of Contracts
- The opposing party acknowledges the historical existence of the contract within their submitted documentation, contradicting claims that it was recently fabricated. This recognition is crucial for establishing its validity in court.
Role of Tacha (Challenge)
- The challenge (tacha) cannot serve as a means to preemptively debate the admissibility or relevance of evidence; final evaluation occurs during sentencing based on all presented evidence per established legal standards.
Arguments Against Document Challenges
Request for Dismissal
- A request is made for the dismissal of challenges posed by the defendant regarding document validity across all aspects presented in court. This emphasizes confidence in their legitimacy.
Clarification on Lease Agreements
- An example is provided regarding a lease agreement between Luis Alberto Pauca and Carlos Alberto Vargas Ramos to illustrate potential errors in understanding roles within contractual relationships. This highlights issues with document interpretation.
Examination of Contractual Errors
Misinterpretation Claims
- There are claims that two private contracts presented are incorrectly structured concerning tenant-landlord roles; this misrepresentation undermines their credibility as valid agreements.
Documentation Issues
- Highlighted issues include lack of signature legalization on certain documents dated January 2025 which raises questions about their authenticity and reliability as evidence in court proceedings.
Establishing Document Nullity
Argument for Nullity
- It is argued that improperly drafted documents indicate fundamental flaws leading to their nullity; thus they should not be considered valid evidence by the court system. This assertion aims to strengthen claims against opposing documentation efforts.
Final Considerations on Evidence Evaluation
Emphasis on Authenticity Verification
- A reiteration is made regarding prior verification conducted by notaries concerning signature authenticity; this serves as a basis for requesting proper consideration during procedural evaluations leading up to sentencing decisions.
Judicial Resolution Overview
Summary Judgment Issued
- The court issued resolution number 33 addressing challenges raised against documents admitted from both parties while referencing applicable articles from civil procedural law governing such disputes over evidentiary matters.
Key Legal References:
- Article 300 outlines conditions under which challenges can be made against witnesses and documents.
Grounds for Challenge:
- Challenges must focus solely on material falseness or formal deficiencies prescribed by law under penalty of nullity concerning documentary evidence.
Definition Clarifications:
- Falseness pertains specifically to discrepancies between documented information and reality rather than ideological contentions within private documents.
Implications:
- A document is deemed false if it contains inaccuracies due to alterations or forgery affecting its integrity as an evidential tool within legal contexts.
Discussion on Document Validity and Tacha
Overview of the Tacha Argument
- The plaintiff requests that the tacha (objection) be declared unfounded, arguing that it does not formally question the documents but rather discusses the substance of the claim.
- The focus is on whether the objection pertains to the effectiveness of documents or their substantive rights, which should be addressed in the final judgment rather than through a tacha.
Examination of Document Authenticity
- It is noted that while questions about property rights can arise, they are not appropriate for discussion within a tacha context. The notary has verified signatures and seals on relevant documents, making them immune to challenge via tacha.
- All matters regarding document authenticity must be evaluated during evidentiary debates and reflected in the final ruling.
Distinction Between Tacha Purpose and Document Veracity
- The co-defendant's aim with the tacha appears to be questioning document veracity rather than its legal efficacy, which diverges from what a tacha is intended for—namely, to diminish a document's validity in court proceedings.
- Evaluating document credibility as evidence for specific facts falls under substantive case analysis rather than procedural objections like tachas. This requires consideration alongside other admitted evidence in hearings.
Addressing Allegations of Falsity
- Regarding allegations of falsity concerning a contract dated November 22, 2010, it is emphasized that only an action—not a tacha—can contest such claims since this document was legalized by a notary who confirmed its signatures and seals.
- Any further challenges regarding alleged falsities necessitate more formal procedures beyond mere objections raised through a tacha process. Such issues cannot be resolved at this stage without proper legal channels being followed.
Conclusion on Document Challenges
- No formal indication has been provided by the defendant regarding specific falsities or nullities in questioned documents; instead, challenges seem focused on their probative content—a matter reserved for deeper case analysis rather than procedural objections like tachas.
- Ultimately, no grounds have been established to support either the falsity claim against the November 22 contract or any other challenged documents; thus, all related tachadas are declared unfounded by this court ruling.
Discussion on Notarial Authentication and Evidence
Overview of the Case
- The final resolution of the seventh plenary session establishes that the magistrate's authority is acknowledged, but emphasizes that mere acceptance by a notary is insufficient without additional evidence.
Examination of Evidence
- It is noted that other evidentiary elements, including an audio recording, are presented to support claims regarding potential errors in signature authentication.
Authenticity Concerns
- A new fact emerges questioning the authenticity of a 2010 document; despite the notary's affirmation, expert analysis contradicts this claim, indicating discrepancies in signatures and seals over time.
Procedural Considerations
- The submission of documents aligns with Article 429 of the Civil Procedural Code, which governs supplementary applications in legal proceedings.
Response from Defense Counsel
- The defense requests dismissal of observations made under Article 429, arguing they do not alter or challenge the notarized report or previously established contentious points.
Notarial Report and Its Implications
Nature of Notarial Reports
- It is clarified that the notarial report was generated at the court's request rather than initiated by either party involved in the case.
Confirmation of Signatures
- The notary confirmed that signatures and seals on a private sale contract were legitimate as per his findings documented in his report.
Incorporation of New Documents
Request for Document Inclusion
- There is a procedural discussion about whether to incorporate requested documents based on Article 429; initial assessments focus on their relevance to ongoing proceedings.
Evaluation Criteria for Evidence
- All submitted materials must be evaluated for their pertinence and effectiveness as evidence within existing legal frameworks. Only one document was produced after filing the demand—an expert assessment.
Challenges to Contract Validity
Allegations Against Private Sale Contract
- Claims arise regarding alleged falsification or simulation concerning a private sale contract; however, existing evidence shows legally authenticated signatures supporting its validity.
Conclusion on Evidence Submission
Ruling on Submitted Requests
- The court declares requests under Article 429 unfounded due to lack of relevant probative value; thus, no new substantial evidence has been introduced into consideration.
Further Developments in Evidence Presentation
Additional Submissions by Co-defendant
- Edgar Pedro Lazo Socoalaya submits further documentation aimed at expanding upon previous expert reports related to contested facts surrounding contract validity.
Analysis of Newly Presented Evidence
Relevance Assessment
- The plaintiff argues against newly submitted evidence claiming it does not modify prior statements made by the notary nor address key disputed issues effectively.
This structured markdown file provides an organized overview with timestamps linked directly to specific discussions within the transcript. Each section captures critical insights while maintaining clarity and brevity for effective study purposes.
Procedural Decisions in Legal Context
Admission of Evidence and Jurisprudence
- The court declares the inadmissibility of new evidence related to the acceptance of a director's charge, as it does not pertain to new facts.
- In case 849-2017, jurisprudence is deemed insufficient as evidence since it does not relate directly to the material facts of the case.
Appeal Process and Judicial Discretion
- The judge allows the plaintiff to express their agreement or file an appeal regarding the court's resolution on evidence admission.
- An appeal is filed concerning monetary aspects, with a three-day period granted for substantiation; failure to comply will result in non-admission.
Request for Notary Testimony
- A request is made by one party for a notary's declaration to verify contested facts, emphasizing its importance for transparency in proceedings.
- The judge reminds that offering evidence is at their discretion if presented materials are inadequate; legal justification for requests must be provided during hearings.
Legal Justification and Equitable Principles
- The attorney argues that due process and equity principles necessitate the notary’s testimony to address allegations of irregularities raised by the opposing party.
- There is confusion over whether the request aligns with specific articles of law governing such declarations, leading to discussions about procedural correctness.
Conclusion on Evidence Submission
- The court reserves judgment on admitting the notary's declaration while allowing time for both parties to respond regarding submitted expert reports within three days.
- Ongoing discussions highlight procedural adherence and ensure all parties have opportunities to present their cases effectively before concluding this segment of proceedings.
Discussion on Notarial Reports and Document Authenticity
New Evidence Submission
- The discussion begins with the introduction of new evidence related to a notarial report, specifically an inquiry sent to a notary for an official statement regarding a contract from November 22, 2010.
Notary's Report Confirmation
- The notary confirmed that the signatures on the contract are authentic, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the document in question. This confirmation is crucial for establishing the validity of claims made by both parties.
Concerns Over Document Legitimacy
- The speaker expresses concern that the document may have been fabricated after its supposed creation date, prompting further investigation into its authenticity. They emphasize their client's worries regarding this issue.
Search for Payment Receipts
- Efforts were made to obtain electronic receipts from the notary's office related to payments made by both buyer and seller; however, no such receipts were found, suggesting potential irregularities in the transaction process.
Receipt Acquisition Process
- After paying a fee, copies of certain receipts were obtained; one receipt dated May 29, 2016, was highlighted as part of this process but did not correspond with any services rendered on behalf of either party involved in the sale.
Examination of Documentary Evidence
Lack of Supporting Documentation
- Documents presented indicate that there are no records or receipts from the notary corresponding to services provided for either party at critical dates relevant to this case. This absence supports claims questioning document authenticity.
Implications for Contract Validity
- The lack of proper documentation raises questions about whether the contract signed in 2010 was executed legitimately or if it constitutes fraudulent activity due to missing payment records and formalities typically required by notarization processes.
Requesting Joint Resolution
- A request is made to resolve issues collectively concerning two written submissions dated June 24 and July 1, emphasizing their interconnectedness and relevance to ongoing proceedings.
Further Evidence Submission
Additional Notarial Conversations
- Subsequent discussions reveal conversations with the notary where he acknowledged possible fraudulent actions associated with documents under scrutiny; these conversations are recorded and form part of submitted evidence against claims made by opposing counsel.
Contradictory Statements from Notary
- During recorded conversations lasting over twelve minutes, inconsistencies arise as the notary attempts to explain discrepancies while admitting potential fraud linked to documentation practices within his office. This contradiction could impact credibility significantly during legal evaluations.
Legal Framework and Tariff Regulations
Understanding Notarial Fees
- It is emphasized that notarized services should adhere strictly to established tariff regulations; any deviation or lack thereof could signify improper conduct or fraudulent activities surrounding notarizations performed on contracts like those being contested here.
Proving Fraudulent Activity
- The aim is clear: establish that if proper procedures had been followed when executing contracts in question (including appropriate fees), then valid receipts would exist—indicating failure in compliance suggests fraudulent intent behind actions taken regarding these documents.
Justification for Admitting New Evidence
Rationale Behind New Submissions
- A succinct rationale is provided advocating for acceptance of newly submitted evidence based on findings from previous inquiries conducted by both parties involved—highlighting discrepancies between reported facts versus actual documented events surrounding transactions under review.
Denial of Service Claims
- Despite assertions from opposing counsel claiming service provision occurred on specific dates mentioned earlier (November 22), supporting documentation fails entirely—reinforcing arguments against validity raised throughout proceedings thus far.
Response from Opposing Counsel
Counterarguments Presented
- The opposing side requests dismissal of all observations presented by defense counsel arguing they do not undermine nor alter existing reports issued by official sources (notaries)—emphasizing reliance upon previously established legal frameworks governing such matters.
Official Confirmation Impact
- An official report confirms signatures' authenticity alongside other details pertinent towards validating contractual agreements—this confirmation serves as a cornerstone argument favoring plaintiff’s position amidst ongoing disputes over legitimacy surrounding transactions discussed herein.
This structured summary encapsulates key discussions around document authenticity issues involving notarized contracts while highlighting procedural challenges faced during legal evaluations within this context—all anchored firmly through timestamped references facilitating easy navigation back into original content when needed!
Procedural Requests and Evidence Submission
Overview of the Hearing Process
- The process aims to address specific controversial points set by the court, with a request to dismiss observations from the defendant's side.
- Multiple pieces of evidence are being introduced, necessitating an analysis of their relevance and admissibility.
- Due to time constraints and multiple scheduled hearings, the judge proposes suspending the current session for thorough resolution.
Witness Testimonies and Scheduling
- Witnesses have appeared but cannot testify due to time limitations; agreement is reached among parties to suspend proceedings.
- All parties consent to suspension as they have another trial scheduled at noon, indicating a busy court calendar.
Technical Issues with Evidence Presentation
Audio/Video Evidence Concerns
- A DVD containing audio evidence has been submitted but is in a YouTube format that is inaccessible during the hearing.
- The judge requests that future submissions be provided in Google Drive format for accessibility in upcoming sessions.
Responsibility for Evidence Accessibility
- The responsibility for ensuring audios can be accessed lies with the submitting party; failure may affect future hearings.
- Clarification on whether audio files were received by all parties indicates some discrepancies in notification.
Coordination Among Participants
Witness Notification and Attendance
- Efforts are made to contact missing witnesses so they can join the platform for testimony.
- The hearing has extended beyond expected duration without reaching witness testimonies, prompting further delays.
Next Steps and Future Hearings
- The current session will be suspended until a new date is set for witness declarations, ensuring no prejudice against them.
- A new hearing date is established: September 18 at 9 AM, with clear instructions regarding attendance responsibilities.
Conclusion of Current Proceedings
Final Notifications
- All participants are notified about the next steps and required attendance under potential penalties for non-compliance.
- Gratitude expressed towards participants concludes this segment of proceedings.