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

Abstract

Abstract: This study analyzes the reasoning provided in judgments issued by trial-level judges in Ecuador, with the general objective of evaluating compliance with normative and jurisprudential standards for legal argumentation in criminal matters. The study was conducted in the city of Loja, using a final, non-appealable judgment regarding the crime of fraud as a sample. Methodologically, a qualitative approach with a descriptive scope was adopted, employing analytical-synthetic and dogmatic methods, as well as document analysis techniques for an exhaustive examination of the judicial ruling. The results demonstrate that, while the judgment adheres to a basic formal structure by describing the facts and citing relevant legal provisions, it lacks in-depth factual and legal substantiation regarding the material elements of the crime and the defendant's liability. It is concluded that deficiencies persist in the practical application of the principle of judicial reasoning, thereby affecting the constitutional guarantee of due process.