In this paper, a procedural analysis of the so-called principle of sufficient reason used in the Chilean criminal process is formulated. For this, it starts by establishing previous concepts on the normative conditions of the factual judgment in relation to the probative merit of the process, in order to examine in that framework and context the meaning and benefit that has been attributed to the principle of sufficient reason in the Chilean criminal process, and the consequences that derive from it for the correct application of the appeal for annulment. In this regard, a dogmatic reasoning is offered that aims to demonstrate that the principle in question is an unnecessary and erroneous concept in the Chilean legal system.