El procedimiento abreviado y su compatibilidad con el principio de presunción de inocencia en el sistema penal ecuatoriano.

Abstract

This research examines the compatibility of the abbreviated procedure with the constitutional principle and fundamental right to the presumption of innocence within the Ecuadorian criminal procedural system. Since the entry into force of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code (COIP), the abbreviated procedure has been established as a tool to simplify proceedings, aiming for greater speed, efficiency in the use of procedural resources, and optimization of State assets. However, its practical application creates significant tensions with due process guarantees and the prohibition against self-incrimination. Through a qualitative approach with a descriptive-explanatory scope, using dogmatic, hermeneutic, and analytical-synthetic methods, this study evaluates how the legal requirement of admitting the factual allegations to obtain a sentence reduction may distort the burden of proof (onus probandi) belonging strictly to the State Attorney General's Office. Furthermore, it examines the impact of pre-trial detention on the defendant's consent, identifying that, in many scenarios, opting for this procedure does not stem from an autonomous admission of guilt, but rather serves as a survival mechanism amidst the penitentiary crisis and unreasonable delays of standard trials. Finally, the study concludes with the necessity of strengthening the role of the criminal guarantee judge as a true guardian of fundamental rights, requiring a strict control standard over the evidence supporting the agreement to prevent negotiated justice from degrading into a formalistic inquisitorial practice.