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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes judicial reasoning in rulings issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, focusing specifically on how the judge connects established facts, applicable legal norms, and the final decision. This analysis is grounded in the guarantee of due process, which aims to prevent arbitrariness and a lack of proper reasoning. The study seeks to determine whether first-instance judicial rulings demonstrate appropriate coherence, clarity, and sufficient argumentation when resolving specific cases; this was examined through a case study involving proceedings against an alleged perpetrator of the offense defined and penalized under Article 376 of the COIP (Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code) specifically, a traffic accident involving a pedestrian collision. Unlike rulings that suffer from inconsistencies, this case demonstrates a judgment that is orderly, fair, and easy to understand. The existence of the offense and liability was also established through logical alignment, starting with expert evidence and verifying its correspondence with the criminal offense proven by the prosecution. This review concludes that proper reasoning in traffic and criminal matters is the cornerstone of legal certainty; it enables the parties to understand the factual and legal grounds justifying a penalty or, where applicable, the affirmation of innocence thereby transforming technical evidence into a reasoned procedural truth.