Querencia Los Cabos Case: Baja California Sur Prosecutors' Decision Not to Prosecute and Their Request for Charges

Querencia Los Cabos case: Baja California Sur prosecutors sought charges in July 2026. A decision dated February 11, 2026, declined to prosecute three offenses.

Vox Populi Staff

A stack of closed folders on a wooden desk in an office with soft light

On July 15, 2026, Baja California Sur prosecutors sought a charging hearing in the Querencia Los Cabos case against three parties, including the driver and the club's doctor (under investigation), court records show. The same office had resolved, according to a decision dated February 11, 2026, and its authorization of February 13, not to prosecute those two and two Querencia companies for three offenses, while pursuing the driver for two others. According to the decision and its authorization, state prosecutor Bryan Alejandro González Beltrán drew it up and Consuelo Erica Casimiro Morales, acting head of a regional deputy prosecutor's office, approved it. On September 23, 2026, a pretrial judge revoked it, according to the transcription of the ruling, as 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.

Casimiro Morales and González Beltrán have been reported to the authorities in a complaint that alleges, among other offenses, denial of justice (denegación de justicia). That complaint proves nothing on its own, and both officials are presumed innocent.

What the February decision said

In Mexico, crimes are investigated by the Ministerio Público, the state Public Prosecutor's Office, which also decides whether to pursue prosecution. Prosecutors' investigation file in this case (carpeta de investigación), the record of their inquiry, was opened to look into four offenses: unintentional bodily injury, failure to file a medical report (omisión de informe médico), property damage and failure to render aid (omisión de auxilio). It concerns a crash on March 25, 2025, at Querencia Los Cabos, a development in San José del Cabo, when a golf cart was rear-ended by a RAM 700 truck bearing Querencia markings and a 5-year-old girl riding in it was thrown out.

Prosecutors record a choice not to pursue specific offenses against specific people or companies in a decision not to prosecute (no ejercicio de la acción penal). Here, the decision and its authorization covered three offenses, concealment (encubrimiento), failure to render aid and failure to file a medical report, and four parties: two companies, Querencia Real Estate, S. de R.L. de C.V. and Querencia Golf Club, S. de R.L. de C.V., plus the driver and the club's doctor, both under investigation. According to the decision and its authorization, the prosecutor decided against prosecuting any of the four for those offenses on the ground of atipicidad: in their terms, the conduct described did not match the legal elements of any of the three. On two other offenses, unintentional bodily injury and property damage, the same documents record a decision to prosecute the driver. The suffix S. de R.L. de C.V. denotes a type of Mexican limited-liability company, broadly similar to a U.S. LLC.

On the companies (personas morales), the February 11, 2026 decision 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 drew it up and who approved it

Under Mexican procedure, such a decision needs more than the prosecutor's signature: a higher-ranking official of the same office must authorize it. According to the decision, the proposal not to prosecute was drawn up by Bryan Alejandro González Beltrán, a state prosecutor (agente del Ministerio Público) with the Baja California Sur state attorney general's office (Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado de Baja California Sur). The official who authorized it on February 13, 2026, according to its authorization, was Consuelo Erica Casimiro Morales, acting head (encargada de despacho) of the Southern Zone Regional Deputy Prosecutor's Office for Criminal Proceedings (Subprocuraduría Regional de Procedimientos Penales Zona Sur), a regional office within the state attorney general's office. The authorization refers to it as a decision not to prosecute "on the ground of atipicidad" (translated from Spanish: "por atipicidad") and approves it "on the same terms proposed" (translated from Spanish: "en los mismos términos planteados").

Why "grounded and reasoned" matters

Mexico's Constitution sets a basic condition for official action. Under Article 16, every act of authority must be fundado y motivado: grounded, meaning it cites the legal provisions it rests on, and reasoned, meaning it explains how those provisions fit the specific facts. It is part of due process in Mexico, not a formality, and it is what allows the people affected, and a court, to see why an authority decided what it did.

A pretrial judge (Juez de Control) oversees a case while prosecutors are still investigating it, and may review a decision not to prosecute at a dedicated hearing called the audiencia de control. According to the transcription of the ruling, on September 23, 2026, the pretrial judge 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 (no estaba fundada ni motivada), and ordered the investigation to continue; the prosecutor may issue a new, properly grounded and reasoned decision. In the same ruling, according to that transcription, the judge considered that not prosecuting was warranted as to the companies (personas morales).

How can a decision not to prosecute three offenses be drawn up and then authorized inside a state attorney general's office without meeting that basic constitutional requirement? That is not due process.

What the revocation does not decide

A hearing of this kind is not a trial. It does not decide whether anyone committed an offense and convicts or acquits no one. The revocation came with an order to continue the investigation; it is not a finding against any person or company, and everyone named in the decision is presumed innocent.

Where the case stands

According to court records, the July 15, 2026 request asked the pretrial judge for an initial hearing (audiencia inicial), the point at which formal charges can be brought, concerning three parties: Querencia Construcciones, S. de R.L. de C.V., the driver, and the club's doctor (under investigation). The driver and the club's doctor (under investigation) appear both in that request and in the February decision. The judge scheduled the hearing for August 26, 2026, and on that date it was postponed to September 30, 2026.

Each stage of the process is laid out in how the Querencia Los Cabos case moves through Mexico's courts. The March 25, 2025 crash is described in the Querencia Los Cabos case and in what the investigation file records about it.

More in this series