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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the requirement for reasoned justification in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador. The general objective is to examine whether criminal judgment No. 13284-2019-XXXXX meets the constitutional standard for sufficiency of reasoning and whether its legal analysis correctly applies the doctrinal categories associated with robbery, kidnapping, co-perpetration, and the ideal concurrence of offenses. The study focuses on the decision handed down by the Sole Criminal Guarantees Tribunal of Manabí (Manta seat), as it represents a trial-level ruling of significant argumentative importance. A qualitative approach with a descriptive and analytical scope was employed, utilizing a documentary review of the judgment, an argumentative mapping chart, the "EL SER" method, and questionnaires assessing the standards for sufficiency and correctness of reasoning. The results demonstrate that the decision contains sufficient normative and factual grounds, objectively evaluates technical telecommunications evidence, and discounts inconsistent testimony. It is concluded that clear, logically sound legal reasoning strengthens due process, legal certainty, and the oversight of judicial arbitrariness in complex criminal cases involving organized crime and multiple offenses.