Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuado

Abstract

Abstract: This paper reflects on the WFPB case ruling, where a violation of the principle of procedural consistency is observed when the legal classification of the crime was changed from attempted rape to sexual abuse. Based on doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis, it examines how this decision impacts due process, legal certainty, and the defendant's right to a defense. The research seeks to demonstrate that every ruling must maintain coherence between the accusation, the facts, and the judgment, preventing the judge from exceeding the limits of the prosecution's case. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of sufficient reasoning as a constitutional guarantee that allows for understanding and monitoring the validity of judicial decisions. Overall, this work offers a critical and humanistic perspective on the need to strengthen judicial argumentation, promoting a justice system free from arbitrariness and more aligned with the principles of the rule of law.