Querencia Los Cabos Case: Why the Decision Not to Prosecute Was Not Due Process
On July 15, 2026, Mexican prosecutors asked a pretrial judge for a hearing to formally charge the driver and the club's doctor, both under investigation, and Querencia Construcciones.
Yet, according to a decision dated February 11, 2026, and authorized on February 13, the same prosecutors' office had decided not to prosecute the driver, the doctor, Querencia Real Estate and Querencia Golf Club for three specific offenses, while calling for prosecuting the driver for two others.
According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, the pretrial judge (Juez de Control) in Los Cabos revoked that decision because it was not properly grounded or reasoned, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, according to that transcription, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales). Both officials who signed the Querencia Los Cabos decision not to prosecute have been reported to the authorities.
What the decision said
In Mexico, the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) is the state agency that investigates crimes and decides whether to take them to court. Its prosecutors build each case in an investigation file (carpeta de investigación), the record they assemble before any charges. Here, the file concerns the March 25, 2025 accident in which a truck bearing Querencia markings rear-ended a golf cart. A decision not to prosecute (no ejercicio de la acción penal) is roughly what a U.S. reader would call a prosecutor's decision not to charge.
The decision proposed not to prosecute, on the ground of atipicidad, in favor of Querencia Real Estate, Querencia Golf Club and the club doctor, José Luis Sánchez Musi, who is under investigation, for failure to render aid, failure to file a medical report and concealment (encubrimiento).
According to the decision, dated February 11, 2026, and its authorization, the prosecutor decided not to prosecute four parties for those three offenses. They were the driver and the club's doctor, both under investigation, Querencia Real Estate, S. de R.L. de C.V. (a Mexican company form roughly comparable to a U.S. LLC) and Querencia Golf Club, S. de R.L. de C.V.
The stated ground was atipicidad: in the decision's terms, the conduct did not fit the legal definition of those offenses. The same decision called for prosecuting the driver for unintentional bodily injury and property damage.
According to its authorization, the approval was for the "no ejercicio de la acción penal por atipicidad" (translated from Spanish: "not prosecuting, because the conduct did not fit the definition of the offense"), "on the same terms proposed" (translated from Spanish: "en los mismos términos planteados").
On the companies, the decision dated February 11, 2026 stated: "Any liability that may arise is civil or administrative in nature, not criminal, since no direct intervention fitting the definition of an offense was established" (translated from Spanish: "La responsabilidad que pudiera derivar es de naturaleza civil o administrativa, no penal, al no acreditarse intervención directa típica").
Who issued it and who authorized it
Under Mexican law, a superior official must approve a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute.
According to the decision, it was issued as a proposal by state prosecutor (agente del Ministerio Público) Bryan Alejandro González Beltrán, of the Baja California Sur State Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado de Baja California Sur). According to its authorization, Consuelo Erica Casimiro Morales authorized it on February 13, 2026, as acting head (encargada de despacho, temporarily in charge) of the Southern Zone Regional Deputy Prosecutor's Office for Criminal Proceedings, a regional division of that office.
González Beltrán and Casimiro Morales have been reported to the authorities. The criminal complaint against them alleges unlawful exercise of public service (ejercicio ilícito del servicio público), falsehood by public servants (falsedad de servidores públicos) and denial of justice (denegación de justicia).
What the pretrial judge decided
A pretrial judge (Juez de Control) oversees the investigation stage and can review a decision not to prosecute at a hearing (audiencia de control).
According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, the pretrial judge revoked the decision because it was not properly grounded or reasoned, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, according to that transcription, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales).
Prosecutors may issue a new, properly grounded and reasoned decision. See what happened before the pretrial judge.
This page will be updated when the next step in the case is on record.
Why that is not due process
Article 16 of Mexico's Constitution requires acts of authority to be issued in writing by a competent authority that states their legal basis and their reasons. Mexican law calls this being fundado y motivado. Fundado means the act cites the specific legal provisions it rests on. Motivado means it explains why those provisions apply to the facts at hand. The requirement is part of due process in Mexico. Anyone affected by an act of authority, and any judge who reviews it, must be able to see on what basis and for what reasons it was issued.
A decision not to prosecute determines which conduct will not be taken before a judge. It should say which law applies and why. According to the transcription of the ruling described above, this one was not properly grounded or reasoned. In the same ruling, according to that transcription, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales). According to the documents themselves, the decision was proposed by a prosecutor and approved by a superior. How can a decision not to prosecute pass through two levels of a state attorney general's office without meeting a requirement this basic? It should not have happened. That is not due process.
The charging hearing request
On July 15, 2026, prosecutors asked the pretrial judge for a charging hearing (audiencia de imputación), where charges may be formally brought. The request names the driver and the club's doctor, both under investigation, and Querencia Construcciones, S. de R.L. de C.V. Read about the request for a charging hearing.
Key questions
Is the decision not to prosecute in the Querencia Los Cabos case still in effect?
According to the transcription of the ruling, a pretrial judge revoked it on September 23, 2026, because it was not properly grounded or reasoned, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, according to that transcription, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales).
What does "fundado y motivado" mean, and why does it matter here?
Under Article 16 of Mexico's Constitution, an act of authority must state its legal basis (fundado) and its reasons (motivado); it is part of due process. According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, a pretrial judge revoked the decision not to prosecute because it was not properly grounded or reasoned, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, according to that transcription, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales).
What did the judge decide about the companies?
According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, a pretrial judge revoked the decision because it was not properly grounded or reasoned, and ordered the investigation to continue. In the same ruling, according to that transcription, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales).