Querencia Los Cabos Case: Who Signed the Decision Not to Prosecute, and What the Judge Decided
According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, a pretrial judge (Juez de Control) in Los Cabos, Mexico, revoked a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute specific offenses, dated February 11, 2026, and authorized on February 13, 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). According to the decision, state prosecutor Bryan Alejandro González Beltrán issued it; according to its authorization, Consuelo Erica Casimiro Morales authorized it. The Querencia Los Cabos decision not to prosecute was part of the investigation into a March 25, 2025 accident in which a truck bearing Querencia markings rear-ended a golf cart.
What the decision said
The state Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), called prosecutors here, investigates crimes. Its decision not to prosecute (no ejercicio de la acción penal) is roughly a U.S. decision not to charge.
According to the decision, dated February 11, 2026, and its authorization, the prosecutor decided not to prosecute four parties for failure to render aid, failure to file a medical report and concealment (encubrimiento). They were the driver and the club's doctor, both under investigation, Querencia Real Estate, S. de R.L. de C.V. (a Mexican limited-liability 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 also 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 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. The authorization identifies her 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). A complaint does not prove what it alleges; both are presumed innocent.
What the pretrial judge decided
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.
What it means and what it does not
- A pretrial judge, who oversees the investigation stage, can review such a decision at a hearing (audiencia de control).
- That hearing is not a trial: it convicts or acquits no one. Every person and company named here is presumed innocent.
See the glossary of case terms.
What comes next in the case
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.
Court records show the judge set the hearing for August 26, 2026. On August 26, 2026, it was postponed to September 30, 2026. Read about the request for a charging hearing.
This page will be updated when the next step in the case is on record.
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).
Who signed the decision?
According to the decision, state prosecutor Bryan Alejandro González Beltrán issued it; according to its authorization, Consuelo Erica Casimiro Morales authorized it. 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 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).