El principio Iura Novit Curia y su incidencia en la facultad del juez penal para sentenciar por un delito distinto al acusado: límites constitucionales y legales en el sistema acusatorio ecuatoriano

Abstract

This thesis analyzes the impact of the Iura Novit Curia principle on the authority of the criminal judge to convict for an offense different from that charged in the indictment, within the Ecuadorian accusatory system, in light of the constitutional and legal limits governing the exercise of judicial functions. This analysis addresses a problem arising within the Ecuadorian legal framework, in which, under certain circumstances, criminal courts convict the accused of an offense different from the one initially charged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.The study is developed using a qualitative approach, through normative, doctrinal, and jurisprudential analysis of the Iura Novit Curia principle, both at the national and comparative levels. Ecuadorian constitutional and current legal regulations are examined, along with doctrinal writings and constitutional case law, in order to identify the scope and limits of the judicial reclassification of criminal offenses by judges.Based on this analysis, it is concluded that an extensive or unexpected application of the Iura Novit Curia principle, when it entails a substantial modification of the criminal offense without guaranteeing a real opportunity for contradiction and defense, may violate the fundamental rights of the accused and distort the proper scope of Iura Novit Curia and the accusatory system.