The principle of congruence against Iura Novit Curia in the modification of the criminal offense in conviction sentences

Abstract

The research analyzed the iura novit and congruence principles, when there is a change in the criminal type by the judge, at the time of issuing a conviction, and the changed criminal type differs from the accused by the prosecution and the legal debate in the hearing of judging; this is because there is a discrepancy between the two principles, the first authorizes the judge to modify the criminal types or the legal classification of the facts; while that of congruence establishes limits on judicial rulings, and on the coherence that must exist with the accusation, facts and evidence. The methodology used in this research is non-experimental, with a qualitative approach and a level of descriptive depth, aimed at analyzing and understanding the application of the procedural principles mentioned in Ecuadorian criminal law. In conclusion, it has been determined that the change in the rate by the judges at the time of issuing a sentence violates the principle of presumption of innocence, favorability, and the right to defense, since this surprise modification is abrupt and leaves people defenseless. to the accused, since it prevents them from having the time and means necessary to exercise legal sponsorship.