As provas ilícitas no Direito Processual Civil Brasileiro

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate illegal evidence and its admissibility in any civil proceedings under the principle of proportionality. The investigation begins with general aspects of evidence up to its prohibition in court , under Article 5, paragraph LVI, of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 , as a main rule of the normative system . This rule, that is, the prohibition of the use of illegal evidence in court is directly related to the observance of individual rights , especially privacy, intimacy , the inviolability of the secrecy of correspondence, telegraph and data communications , telephone communications , the household and also with respect to the protection of the physical and moral safety and welfare of citizens. In this context, the distinction between illegal and illegitimate evidence is examined, the procedural consequences of each one, the morally legitimate proofs required under Article 332 of the Civil Code, the distinction between wiretapping and eavesdropping , the related institutes of illegal evidence, the absolute guarantee of the inviolability of correspondence, telegraph and data communications , and the theory of the fruit of the poisoned tree. It is given a picture of how illegal evidence is handled in proceedings under the constitutional directive that the probative prospecting may not be developed at any price , without regard to individual rights or without regard to the procedural rules. Then we discussed the analysis of the admissibility of illegal evidence when there is a conflict with fundamental rights, notably between intimacy and privacy and the right to reparation for injury or threat of injury confirmed by only one possible evidence brought before the Court. This controversy surrounding the possible admissibility of illegal evidence in the process , there are two trends one for and one against admissibility, methods of interpreting the Constitution as a unit , and especially the principle of proportionality, in line with legal certainty