False expert: Court dismisses appeal against conviction

The Supreme Court of Justice has put an end to a criminal case initiated in 2019 for false testimony and the production of non-authentic documents. Through Agreement and Sentence (A. y S.) N° 546, the criminal chamber declared inadmissible an extraordinary appeal for cassation against the sentence that condemned a false expert to 3 years of prison.

The A. y S. N° 546 was signed by criminal chamber ministers Luis María Benítez Riera, Manuel Ramírez Candia, and María Carolina Llanes in the case of "Fernando David Centurión Brítez regarding false testimony." Through the aforementioned ruling, the ministers declared the inadmissibility of the extraordinary appeal for cassation presented by lawyer Víctor Hugo Sanguina against Agreement and Sentence Nº 70 of October 27, 2025, issued by the Court of Appeals, first chamber, and Final Sentence Nº 164 of April 29, 2025.

The Final Sentence N° 164 was issued by the Sentencing Court presided over by Juan Vicente Fretes and composed of Carlos Hermosilla and Héctor Fabián Escobar. This was the second trial for this case. The prosecution was led by prosecutor Marcelo Saldívar, now a Guarantee Criminal Judge. In the first trial, led by the court presided over by Laura Ocampo and composed of Juan Pablo Mendoza and Cándida Fleitas, a sentence of 2 years of prison was established. This decision was partially annulled on second instance, where a new trial was ordered solely for the sentencing, which was finally set at 3 years in prison through SD N° 164.

The background of this unusual case dates back to January 20, 2016, when a van owned by university professor Horacio Cristóbal Segovia Ramírez was involved in a traffic accident. The owner requested coverage from the insurance company La Consolidada SA, as the vehicle was insured. For this purpose, the company Veritas was designated, whose owner, Omar Filippini, requested the submission of several documents. During a conversation, Mr. Segovia asked to be informed of the date the expert reports would be carried out. However, the insurance company rejected the coverage based on the false expert's report.