by paulina@baraibar.com.mx | Oct 3, 2026 | Criminal law
Prosecution by the Public Prosecutor’s Office: requirements and criteria of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) in effect as of 2026
The prosecution's indictment It is a fundamental step in the criminal process in Mexico. Through this document, the prosecution sets out the facts attributed to an individual, their legal classification, and the evidence it intends to present at trial.
But what happens when the accusation contains errors, omits information, or includes facts other than those investigated?
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) addressed these issues in the Amparo review 274/2020, resolved on December 2, 2020. In that judgment, the First Chamber analyzed the requirements for an indictment and their relationship to the rights to an adequate defense and legal certainty.
Although the resolution dates from 2020, its considerations remain relevant for understanding criminal procedure in 2026.
In this article, we explain the legal requirements for an indictment, what occurs during the intermediate stage, and how the defense can respond to potential irregularities.
What did the SCJN decide regarding the accusation made by the Public Prosecutor's Office?
What did the SCJN decide regarding the accusation made by the Public Prosecutor's Office?
During the proceedings, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of Articles 324 (section III), 334, and 335 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure (CNPP).
In essence, he argued that those provisions violated his fundamental rights, particularly the right to an adequate defense and to be treated with dignity.
The First Chamber studied the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and concluded that they establish rules that provide legal certainty to the parties.
Consequently, it denied the *amparo* (constitutional relief) regarding those provisions and reserved the analysis of the remaining questions of legality for the collegiate court.
Official source: Sentencia del amparo en revisión 274/2020, SCJN.
What requirements must the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s formal accusation meet?
Article 335 of the CNPP establishes the content that must be included in the Public Prosecutor's accusation.
The Supreme Court explained that these requirements can be analyzed from two perspectives: formal and substantive.
Both are important because they allow for the identification of the parties, the delineation of the alleged facts, and the proper preparation of the defense.
Formal requirements of the accusation
The formal requirements relate to the submission of the written document and the identification of those participating in the procedure.
Among them, the following stand out:
- Submit the accusation in writing.
- Identify the accused person and their defense counsel.
- Identify the victim or aggrieved party and their legal counsel.
These elements make it possible to identify the parties involved and establish who is responsible for intervening during the intermediate stage.
Substantive requirements of the accusation
Substantive requirements refer to the content of the charge and the elements that support the Public Prosecutor’s claim.
The accusation must specify, among other aspects:
- The alleged acts, including the circumstances of manner, time, and place.
- Legal classification and modalities of the crime.
- The specific authorship or participation attributed to the accused.
- The applicable legal provisions.
- The evidence intended to be presented at trial.
- La pena o medida de seguridad solicitada.
- The amount for reparation of damages and the corresponding evidence.
- The other requests provided for in Article 335, where applicable.
The purpose is for the accused to clearly understand the facts and the legal consequences that the prosecution intends to establish.
Can the prosecution modify the facts of the indictment?
Can the prosecution modify the facts of the indictment?
However, the Public Prosecutor's Office may present a different legal classification, provided that it informs the parties accordingly.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish between modifying the legal classification of conduct and introducing new facts that were not part of the initial charges.
Legal source: National Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 335.
Have you received a criminal charge and need to understand its implications? At Baráibar Temblador y Asociados, we can analyze the document, identify potential irregularities, and evaluate defense options tailored to your specific case.
The intermediate stage: what does the judge review before the oral trial?
The intermediate stage is a phase of criminal proceedings that takes place after the supplementary investigation and before the oral trial.
In accordance with Article 334 of the CNPP, its purpose is the presentation and admission of evidence, as well as the refinement of the disputed facts that will be the subject of the trial.
Consequently, it is not a stage intended to determine in advance whether the accused person is guilty or innocent.
Its function consists of preparing the trial and resolving the procedural issues that the law permits to be examined.
Las dos fases de la etapa intermedia
Written phase
It begins with the presentation of the prosecution's charges.
During this phase, actions such as the notification of the accusation, the participation of the victim, and the presentation of arguments by the defense take place.
Oral phase
It takes place during the intermediate hearing.
En ella se abordan las cuestiones procesales correspondientes, los acuerdos probatorios y la admisión o exclusión de los medios de prueba, conforme a las reglas legales.
The stage concludes with the issuance of the order to commence the oral trial, where appropriate.
Formal review and analysis of the indictment
In *amparo* review case 274/2020, the Supreme Court examined the importance of the formal and substantive requirements of an accusation.
Their reasoning makes it clear that the document must contain sufficient elements to define the scope of the criminal dispute and protect the exercise of the defense.
However, this does not mean that the supervisory judge may replace the trial court or make an early determination regarding criminal liability.
The judge’s powers during the intermediate stage are defined by the CNPP.
How is a criminal charge filed, step by step?
The procedure establishes specific moments for the Public Prosecutor's Office to formulate its accusation and for the other parties to exercise their rights.
Understanding this sequence helps in identifying when it is appropriate to submit observations or prepare a defense strategy.
1. Conclusion of the supplementary investigation
Once the supplementary investigation has concluded, the Public Prosecutor’s Office generally has fifteen days to adopt one of the decisions provided for in Article 324 of the CNPP:
- Request a partial or total dismissal.
- Request the suspension of the proceedings.
- Formulate the accusation.
If you believe there are grounds to proceed to trial, you must file the appropriate document.
2. Presentation and notification of the charge
The Public Prosecutor's Office presents its indictment to the supervisory judge.
Subsequently, the parties are notified so that they may become aware of its content and exercise the procedural rights to which they are entitled.
This notification is important because it allows the defense to review the facts, the evidence presented, and the requests made by the prosecution.
3. Preparation for the intermediate hearing
During the written phase, the parties may carry out the actions provided for in the CNPP.
For example, the defense may point out formal defects, prepare its evidence, and state its position regarding potential evidentiary stipulations.
The applicable time limits must be reviewed in accordance with the provisions in force and the procedural circumstances of the case file.
4. Holding of the intermediate hearing
In this hearing, the presiding judge resolves the matters that pertain to this stage.
These include the correction of certain formal defects, requests relating to means of proof, and evidentiary agreements.
5. Order for the commencement of oral trial
At the conclusion of the hearing, if it is appropriate to continue the proceedings, an order for the commencement of trial is issued.
This document establishes the elements necessary for the next stage, including the facts at issue in the trial and the admitted evidence.
For this reason, the participation of the defense during the intermediate stage is especially important.
What errors might arise in the Public Prosecutor's indictment?
A criminal charge must meet the requirements set forth in procedural law.
When deficiencies exist, the defense may analyze them and, depending on their nature, submit the appropriate requests.
However, not all errors produce the same legal consequences.
Imprecise or incomplete facts
An accusation can present problems when it describes the facts in too general a manner.
For example, omitting relevant circumstances regarding time, place, or participation could make it difficult for the accused person to understand the specific conduct attributed to them.
The defense must review whether the narrative meets the requirements of Article 335.
Inconsistent legal classification
Another problem may arise when the proposed legal classification does not clearly correspond to the facts as recounted.
In such cases, it is necessary to examine the consistency between the indictment, the order to initiate formal criminal proceedings, and the applicable penal provisions.
Failure to identify the evidence
The Public Prosecutor's Office must specify the evidence it intends to present, in accordance with legal requirements.
If there are omissions or deficiencies, the defense may submit the corresponding observations.
The exclusion of a piece of evidence, however, requires a legal basis to justify it.
Facts distinct from those underlying the formal initiation of criminal proceedings
Article 335 limits the accusation to the facts and persons included in the indictment order.
Therefore, incorporating facts outside that framework may give rise to an issue of procedural congruence that must be examined in a timely manner.
The consequence will depend on the specific irregularity and the applicable rules.
What can the defense do in the face of a deficient accusation?
Article 340 of the CNPP grants the accused and their defense counsel the opportunity to point out formal defects in the charging document and request their correction.
It also includes other procedural steps that may be relevant for preparing for trial.
Review the attributed facts
El primer paso consiste en comparar el escrito de acusación con el auto de vinculación a proceso.
The defense must verify that there is a correspondence between the alleged facts and those that were the subject of the formal initiation of proceedings.
Examine the legal classification
It is also necessary to analyze whether the proposed legal classification corresponds to the facts described.
This includes examining the modalities of the offense and the form of authorship or participation attributed.
Analyze the evidence
The defense must identify the evidence that the Public Prosecutor's Office intends to present and evaluate its relevance, legality, and connection to the facts.
When there is a legal basis, one may request their exclusion at the appropriate stage.
Request the correction of formal defects
If the document contains formal defects, the defense may request their correction in accordance with Article 340.
It is important to act within the procedural opportunities provided for by legislation.
A timely review allows for better preparation of the defense and helps ensure that certain issues are not left unaddressed.
A timely review allows for better preparation of the defense and helps ensure that certain issues are not left unaddressed.
Amparo review case 274/2020 was resolved prior to the transformation of the Supreme Court’s structure resulting from the judicial reform.
As of September 2025, the SCJN operates under a new composition and organization.
However, the date of a judgment does not, in itself, determine that its reasoning has lost its legal utility.
In this case, the resolution remains a point of reference for understanding the role of the prosecution and its relationship to procedural rights.
A precedent that explains the importance of a clear accusation
The First Chamber concluded that the articles under review provide legal certainty and establish parameters for formulating the accusation.
Thus, the precedent helps explain why the Public Prosecutor's Office must provide sufficiently precise information.
It also helps in understanding the importance of the defense being made aware of the content of the charges in a timely manner.
Is it a binding precedent?
The binding force of a resolution must be analyzed in accordance with the rules applicable to its issuance, the system of precedents, and current jurisprudential criteria.
Therefore, it should not be assumed that every ruling by the Supreme Court automatically constitutes binding case law.
In the case of *amparo* review proceeding 274/2020, its application in other proceedings requires a precise identification of its underlying reasoning and the corresponding legal scope.
What rights does a properly formulated accusation protect?
The requirement for a clear accusation is linked to fundamental rights recognized in the Constitution.
Among them, adequate defense, due process, and legal certainty stand out.
Right to an adequate defense
A person needs to know the facts attributed to them in order to prepare their defense.
When an accusation is imprecise, it may be more difficult to identify which aspects should be contested and what evidence should be presented.
Therefore, the clarity of the accusation is a procedural guarantee.
Right to be informed of the alleged facts
The accused person must have sufficient information regarding the conduct attributed to them.
This allows for the analysis of the charges and participation in the proceedings with knowledge of their content.
Legal certainty during criminal proceedings
Defining the facts and the evidence helps the parties understand the subject matter of the trial.
In this way, the intermediate stage helps to organize the proceedings and protect the rights of those involved.
A criminal charge requires careful legal review. At Baráibar Temblador y Asociados, we provide legal counsel and representation in criminal matters, analyzing the specific circumstances of each case.
Can a company face an accusation from the Public Prosecutor's Office?
Yes. The National Code of Criminal Procedure includes a specific procedure for legal entities in articles 421 through 425.
Therefore, certain companies may face criminal proceedings under the circumstances set forth in the applicable legislation.
However, the criminal liability of a legal entity does not arise automatically from any conduct attributed to its employees or executives.
Determining whether it is appropriate requires analyzing the relevant legal requirements.
Risks for executives and directors
When an investigation involves business activities, it may be necessary to examine the decisions and actions of those involved in management.
The existence of an investigation against a company does not imply, in itself, individual criminal responsibility of its directors.
Each situation must be examined in light of the facts and the applicable provisions.
The importance of internal controls
Las empresas pueden reducir determinados riesgos mediante políticas de cumplimiento, documentación de decisiones y mecanismos adecuados de supervisión.
Estos elementos también pueden resultar relevantes durante una investigación, dependiendo de las circunstancias del caso.
Preparar la defensa desde la investigación
Esperar hasta la audiencia intermedia puede limitar las oportunidades para organizar una estrategia.
Por ello, cuando una empresa conoce la existencia de una investigación penal, conviene revisar oportunamente los hechos, la documentación disponible y sus alternativas jurídicas. De acuerdo con el Lic. Manuel Baráibar Tovar, Socio Fundador de Baráibar Temblador y Asociados, “la etapa intermedia es la última oportunidad para depurar una acusación deficiente antes del juicio; una defensa que la aprovecha con rigor puede cambiar el rumbo de todo el proceso”.
Lista de revisión de una acusación del Ministerio Público
Antes de la audiencia intermedia, es recomendable revisar los siguientes aspectos:
- ¿La acusación identifica correctamente al acusado y a su defensor?
- ¿Identifica a la víctima u ofendido y a su asesor jurídico?
- ¿Describe los hechos con circunstancias de modo, tiempo y lugar?
- ¿Los hechos corresponden con los señalados en el auto de vinculación a proceso?
- ¿La clasificación jurídica es congruente con los hechos?
- ¿Precisa la autoría o participación atribuida?
- ¿Identifica los medios de prueba ofrecidos?
- ¿Incluye las solicitudes sobre pena y reparación del daño que correspondan?
- ¿Cumple los demás requisitos aplicables del artículo 335 del CNPP?
Esta lista es una orientación general y no sustituye la revisión integral del expediente.
Conclusión: una acusación clara es esencial para una defensa adecuada
The prosecution's indictment cumple una función fundamental dentro del procedimiento penal acusatorio.
En el amparo en revisión 274/2020, la Suprema Corte explicó la importancia de sus requisitos formales y materiales para brindar certeza jurídica y proteger los derechos procesales.
Una acusación debe identificar a las partes, describir claramente los hechos, establecer su clasificación jurídica y señalar los medios de prueba correspondientes.
Asimismo, la etapa intermedia ofrece oportunidades para revisar determinadas irregularidades y preparar el juicio oral.
Por ello, tanto las personas acusadas como las empresas involucradas en procedimientos penales deben prestar especial atención al contenido de la acusación y a los plazos procesales.
En Baráibar Temblador y Asociados brindamos asesoría y representación en litigio penal. Si enfrentas una acusación del Ministerio Público, podemos revisar tu situación jurídica y evaluar las alternativas de defensa disponibles.
Preguntas frecuentes sobre la acusación del Ministerio Público
¿Qué es la acusación del Ministerio Público?
Es el escrito mediante el cual la Fiscalía formula formalmente su acusación después de la investigación complementaria. Debe contener los requisitos establecidos en el artículo 335 del Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales.
¿Qué requisitos debe contener una acusación penal?
Debe identificar a las partes, describir los hechos atribuidos, establecer su clasificación jurídica, precisar la participación del acusado y señalar los medios de prueba, entre otros requisitos legales.
¿La Fiscalía puede acusar por hechos distintos a los de la vinculación a proceso?
No. El artículo 335 establece que la acusación solo puede formularse por los hechos y personas señalados en el auto de vinculación. Sin embargo, puede existir una clasificación jurídica distinta, siempre que se informe a las partes.
¿Qué sucede si la acusación contiene errores?
La defensa puede señalar determinados vicios formales y solicitar su corrección conforme al artículo 340 del CNPP. Las consecuencias dependen de la naturaleza de la irregularidad y de las disposiciones aplicables.
¿Qué es la audiencia intermedia?
Es la audiencia en la que se resuelven cuestiones procesales relacionadas con la preparación del juicio, incluida la admisión o exclusión de medios de prueba y la depuración de hechos controvertidos.
¿El amparo en revisión 274/2020 es una sentencia de 2026?
No. La Primera Sala de la SCJN resolvió el asunto el 2 de diciembre de 2020. Su estudio sigue siendo relevante en 2026 para comprender los requisitos de la acusación penal.
¿Una empresa puede ser acusada penalmente?
Sí. El CNPP contempla un procedimiento para personas jurídicas en sus artículos 421 a 425. Su aplicación depende de los requisitos y supuestos establecidos en la legislación correspondiente.
Legal references
- Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Primera Sala. Amparo en revisión 274/2020, resuelto el 2 de diciembre de 2020. Consultar sentencia oficial.
- Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales. Artículos 324, 334, 335, 338, 340, 341, 347 y 421 a 425. Cámara de Diputados.
- Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Artículo 20. Cámara de Diputados.
Aviso legal: Este contenido es informativo y no constituye asesoría jurídica individualizada. La aplicación de las disposiciones y criterios citados depende de las circunstancias de cada caso.
Legal references
- SCJN, Primera Sala. Amparo en revisión 274/2020, sesión del 2 de diciembre de 2020, ponente: Ministro Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo: https://www2.scjn.gob.mx/juridica/engroses/1/2020/2/2_271702_5310_firmado.pdf
- Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales, artículos 324, 334, 335, 338, 340, 341, 347 y 421 a 425. Cámara de Diputados: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/cnpp.htm
- Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, artículo 20.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.
by paulina@baraibar.com.mx | Sep 14, 2026 | Derecho Familiar, Criminal law
Failure to pay child support can result in criminal liability, not just civil, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. In its session of January 7, 2026, the Court resolved Direct Appeals for Review 4627/2025 and 4632/2025. The Court upheld Article 201 of the Penal Code for the State of Morelos, which penalizes anyone who fails to pay court-ordered child support without justification. Therefore, those obligated to pay child support can no longer assume that a partial payment, made without judicial authorization, exempts them from criminal consequences. Consequently, both those entitled to and obligated to pay child support should be aware of the full scope of this ruling.
What did the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) decide regarding non-compliance with child support payments?
The full court confirmed that the crime of failure to provide child support is compatible with the principle of minimal intervention in criminal law. Furthermore, it held that criminal intervention is valid when civil and family law mechanisms are insufficient to guarantee the effective payment of child support. In the two cases analyzed, the debtors made repeated deposits for amounts less than those ordered by the court. For this reason, the Court revoked the injunctions that both had obtained in previous instances.
It is important to note that the Court does not criminalize any genuine delay or financial hardship. On the contrary, it requires that any change in the amount of child support be formally requested from the family court judge. Otherwise, partial compliance without judicial authorization may result in criminal liability for the obligor.
The Case That Originated the Criterion: Partial Deposits Without Judicial Authorization
Two individuals were facing provisional child support payments ordered by a family court for their respective daughters. However, both made repeated deposits in amounts lower than those ordered by the court. Neither formally requested a reduction in the payments from the competent judge. Instead, they unilaterally decided to pay a different amount than the one stipulated.
For this conduct, both were prosecuted under the Penal Code of the State of Morelos. In previous proceedings, they obtained an injunction, arguing that the law was disproportionate. However, the Supreme Court overturned these favorable rulings. Finally, the full court confirmed that the crime was committed under the law in force in Morelos.
Do you have questions about this? The lawyers at Baráibar & Asociados in Mexico City can guide you. Schedule your consultation today.
Context: Other Criteria on Children's Rights in the Same Session
This ruling was not an isolated case. On that same day, January 7, 2026, the Full Court, in Press Release No. 004/2026, resolved another case relevant to Mexican families. In Direct Amparo Appeal 7178/2024, the Court overturned a lower court ruling that had deemed a girl's child support obligation fulfilled thanks to the support of her maternal grandfather. The Full Court determined that this obligation belongs to the biological father and cannot be contingent upon the supportive conduct of other family members.
Además, la Corte precisó que exigir alimentos retroactivos no tiene naturaleza sancionatoria, sino que deriva de una obligación jurídica insustituible e irrenunciable. Al fijar montos retroactivos, los jueces deben analizar si el progenitor conoció el embarazo o el nacimiento, y la buena o mala fe con la que actuó. En conjunto, ambas resoluciones de esa sesión reafirman el mismo principio: el interés superior de la niñez exige el cumplimiento pleno de las obligaciones alimentarias, sin excepciones basadas en la solidaridad de terceros.
Legal Basis for the Crime of Child Support Non-Compliance
What does the Principle of Minimum Criminal Intervention require?
Criminal law should, in principle, be reserved for the most serious offenses that other branches of law cannot resolve. Therefore, the Court analyzed whether criminally sanctioning failure to provide child support respected this principle. It concluded that it did, given the serious risk it poses to the comprehensive development of children and adolescents.
The Best Interests of the Child as Justification
The Court emphasized that the best interests of the child require the full, timely, and continuous payment of child support. It also noted that civil remedies are insufficient when the debtor repeatedly acts in bad faith. Consequently, criminal proceedings are only pursued as a last resort in cases of persistent non-compliance.
How does this criterion affect you if you receive or pay child support?
If you are a child support recipient, this criterion strengthens your ability to demand full payment of the court-ordered support. For example, if the debtor makes partial payments without the judge's authorization, you can pursue criminal charges in addition to civil action. Furthermore, any change in the debtor's financial circumstances must be formally documented with the appropriate authority, not unilaterally.
If you are a child support debtor and experiencing genuine financial hardship, the recommendation is clear: request a modification of the support order from the family court judge before reducing the payment yourself. Likewise, keep documentary evidence of any changes in your financial situation, such as job losses, disability, or verifiable salary reductions.
Don't face this process alone. At Baráibar & Asociados, we have specialists in Family and Criminal Law ready to defend your interests in Mexico City.
Differences between the crime of Morelos and other State Penal Codes
It is worth clarifying that the crime of failure to pay child support is not defined identically throughout the country. Furthermore, each state has its own Penal Code, with different wording and penalties for this conduct. However, most of these codes share a central element: the requirement that the non-compliance lack reasonable justification.
For this reason, the First Chamber's ruling on Article 201 of the Morelos Constitution serves as a guide for similar cases in other states. Likewise, local courts often adopt this type of reasoning when interpreting their own state penal codes. Consequently, both creditors and debtors of alimony should review the specific legislation of their state, without assuming that the rules of Morelos automatically apply throughout Mexico.
What must the debtor prove to justify the non-compliance?
When a person obligated to pay child support faces genuine difficulties in fulfilling their obligations, the burden of proof falls on them. First, they must demonstrate the existence of an objective cause, such as job loss, medical incapacity, or a verifiable reduction in salary. Second, it is advisable to show that this cause arose after the support order was established, or that it was impossible to foresee.
Third, the debtor must demonstrate that they promptly requested a modification of the alimony payment from the family court, rather than reducing the payment unilaterally. Furthermore, judges place particular emphasis on the diligence with which the debtor acted in response to their new financial situation. Conversely, someone who simply stops paying without explanation or any formal procedure will find it difficult to provide a justifiable reason to the authorities.
What does “Without Justifiable Cause” mean according to the Court?
A central aspect of the ruling was the analysis of the phrase “without justifiable cause” within the criminal statute. The Court determined that this term is neither ambiguous nor does it violate the principle of legality in criminal law. On the contrary, it must be analyzed according to the specific circumstances of each individual case.
Among the relevant factors are the debtor's actual financial capacity, the existence of force majeure events, and any verifiable circumstances that prevent compliance. Furthermore, the debtor bears the burden of proving that they were unable to comply with the court-ordered alimony payment. Consequently, this flexible interpretation allows judges to evaluate each situation without resorting to excessive rigidity.
Civil and Criminal Consequences of Non-Compliance
Beyond criminal liability, unjustified non-compliance also has civil consequences. These include the seizure of assets, direct withholding of income, and arrest as a coercive measure in some cases. Family courts may also order additional precautionary measures to guarantee future payment.
For its part, criminal liability does not replace or exclude these civil consequences. Both avenues can coexist and be pursued simultaneously against the same debtor. Therefore, any defense strategy must consider the combined impact of both proceedings.
Role of Family Authorities in Monitoring Compliance
Family court judges, therefore, play a central role in preventing this crime. Furthermore, their timely intervention can prevent a civil breach from escalating into unnecessary criminal liability. For example, when a debtor requests a modification of alimony in a timely manner, the judge can assess their financial situation before a significant debt accumulates.
Likewise, many states maintain registries of delinquent child support debtors, linked to procedures such as obtaining passports or driver's licenses. Consequently, a debtor who ignores their obligations faces consequences that extend beyond the strictly familial sphere. In contrast, those who promptly contact the appropriate authorities retain greater control over their legal situation.
On the other hand, family court authorities can also order enforcement measures before the case escalates to criminal proceedings, such as arrest for repeated non-compliance. Similarly, they can authorize staggered payment agreements when the debtor demonstrates good faith and a willingness to comply. Consequently, both creditors and debtors benefit from timely communication with the family court, rather than waiting for the conflict to become fully litigated.
Practical Recommendations for Child Support Creditors and Debtors
First, every child support recipient should promptly document any non-payment or partial payment received. Then, it is advisable to immediately go to the family court to report the irregularity, without waiting for the arrears to accumulate. Likewise, it is recommended to seek specialized legal advice before initiating any criminal proceedings.
Similarly, any person obligated to pay child support should formally request any adjustment to the support order before modifying the payment on their own. Finally, it is advisable to keep all documentation that proves actual changes in the obligated person's financial capacity. Otherwise, the debtor could face criminal consequences, as confirmed by the Supreme Court.
A family lawyer can guide you through this process from the very beginning, representing both the creditor and the debtor. This early guidance often prevents unnecessary conflicts and reduces the risk of costly procedural errors. Families who manage these types of disputes with timely professional support generally achieve faster and less stressful resolutions for all parties involved.
EXTERNAL LINK: Código Penal para el Estado de Morelos, artículo 201
EXTERNAL LINK: Comunicado de Prensa SCJN No. 004/2026
Moreover, this criterion is framed within a broader context of child rights protection that Baráibar & Asociados has closely followed.
INTERNAL LINK: Right of Admission to Private Schools 2026
INTERNAL LINK: Constitutional Reform of June 3, 2026 — Postponement of Judicial Election and New Ground for Electoral Nullity
Protect your family's rights with expert legal advice from Baráibar & Asociados.
How is a case of non-compliance documented before the Authority?
What the File Should Include
A solid case file begins with the court order or agreement that originally established the alimony amount. From there, it's advisable to gather deposit slips, bank transfers, or receipts that show the payments actually received. A chronological record, month by month, allows for clear identification of periods of non-compliance and discrepancies between the ordered and paid amounts.
Family lawyers often recommend keeping all direct communications with the debtor, such as messages or emails discussing alimony payments. This evidence is valuable both in civil proceedings and in any potential criminal charges. An organized file facilitates the judge's work, expedites the case resolution, and strengthens the alimony recipient's position against any defenses the debtor may attempt.
Why is it important to keep it updated and backed up?
Regularly updating this file also prevents the memory of the events from fading over time. Many cases drag on for months or even years before reaching a final resolution. For this reason, accurate and consistent record-keeping often makes the difference between a well-supported case and one vulnerable to challenges due to lack of evidence.
It is also advisable to digitize and back up each document on more than one storage medium. A physical file can be lost or damaged during a process that lasts several years. Therefore, maintaining chronologically organized digital copies makes it easier to share information with lawyers, experts, or authorities when the case requires it.
This provision is especially valuable in cases involving moves, changes of residence, or immigration processes for either party. An accessible digital file allows for continued case tracking without relying on physical documents that could become unavailable at a critical point in the proceedings. Furthermore, having this provision provides reassurance to families facing lengthy and arduous processes, knowing that the evidence gathered remains protected against any unforeseen circumstances.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's ruling confirms that failure to pay child support can have real criminal consequences in Mexico. From this point forward, no parent obligated to pay child support can unilaterally reduce the court-ordered payment without judicial authorization. On the contrary, any change in economic circumstances must be formally documented before the competent judge. Creditor families thus gain an additional legal recourse against persistent non-compliance. Meanwhile, parents obligated to pay child support must act transparently to avoid unnecessary criminal liability.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What did the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) decide regarding non-compliance with child support payments?
The Plenary validated article 201 of the Penal Code of Morelos, which sanctions the unjustified non-compliance with alimony payments, in accordance with the Direct Appeals in Review 4627/2025 and 4632/2025, resolved on January 7, 2026.
Can a debtor reduce child support payments on their own?
No. Any adjustment must be formally requested from the competent family court judge. Reducing payments without judicial authorization may result in criminal liability, according to the precedent established by the full Court.
What does “without justifiable cause” mean in this crime?
The Court specified that it must be analyzed according to the circumstances of each case, considering the debtor's real economic capacity and any force majeure event verifiable before the competent authority.
What additional civil consequences exist for failing to pay alimony?
Seizure of assets, withholding of income and arrest as a coercive measure in some cases, which may coexist with criminal liability confirmed by the Supreme Court.
What should debtors with genuine financial difficulties do?
Request a modification of the pension before the family court judge and keep documentary evidence of your economic situation, instead of reducing the payment unilaterally and without authorization.
Where can I find the full Supreme Court ruling?
The criterion is found in Press Release No. 004/2026 of the SCJN and in the files of the Direct Amparo Appeals in Review 4627/2025 and 4632/2025, resolved on January 7, 2026.
Legal References
- Comunicado de Prensa SCJN No. 004/2026, 7 de enero de 2026.
- Amparos Directos en Revisión 4627/2025 y 4632/2025, Pleno de la SCJN.
- Código Penal para el Estado de Morelos, artículo 201.
- Ley General de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes.
- Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, artículo 4.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.
by paulina@baraibar.com.mx | Jul 28, 2026 | Criminal law
Esta Ley avanza en el Congreso mexicano como la respuesta legislativa más ambiciosa frente a un delito que hasta hoy se castiga de forma desigual en cada estado. Por primera vez, el país tendrá criterios homologados de investigación, sanción y reparación del daño. Además, la iniciativa llega acompañada de penas de hasta 70 años de prisión y de un catálogo amplio de agravantes. Para despachos, empresas y organizaciones civiles, entender el alcance de esta reforma ya no es opcional. Este artículo explica su origen constitucional, su contenido normativo y el calendario legislativo previsto para agosto de 2026. Asimismo, se revisan las implicaciones prácticas para quienes operan en Ciudad de México y en el resto del país, desde despachos hasta áreas corporativas de cumplimiento.
1. ¿Qué es la Ley General de Feminicidio y por qué surge ahora?
Es la legislación que el Congreso de la Unión debe expedir para unificar los tipos penales, las sanciones y los protocolos de investigación del feminicidio en todo el territorio nacional. Actualmente, cada entidad federativa define el delito de manera distinta, lo cual genera criterios dispares y, en consecuencia, impunidad en muchos casos. Por esta razón, la presidenta Claudia Sheinbaum envió al Congreso, el 15 de julio de 2026, una iniciativa de 62 artículos y 12 transitorios distribuidos en cinco títulos.
Dicha iniciativa no nace de manera aislada. Antes bien, responde a años de exigencia social y a recomendaciones de organismos internacionales de derechos humanos. Asimismo, se apoya en cifras oficiales que documentan un patrón persistente de violencia feminicida en varias regiones del país. De igual manera, busca cerrar espacios de interpretación que hoy permiten confundir un feminicidio con un homicidio doloso simple, con las consecuencias procesales que ello implica.
Organismos como la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos han señalado en distintos informes que la falta de homologación normativa en México favorece la impunidad estructural. Por lo tanto, la nueva ley busca también atender observaciones internacionales pendientes desde hace más de una década. Cabe destacar que el mecanismo elegido, una ley general y no una simple reforma al Código Penal Federal, obliga a todas las entidades federativas a adoptar el mismo piso normativo, sin excepción.
2. Antecedentes: la reforma constitucional al artículo 73
El fundamento jurídico de esta ley no apareció de un día para otro. En abril de 2026, el Senado aprobó por unanimidad, con 119 votos, una reforma al artículo 73 constitucional para facultar al Congreso a legislar en materia de feminicidio como ley general. Posteriormente, el Diario Oficial de la Federación publicó el decreto correspondiente el 6 de mayo de 2026, y este entró en vigor al día siguiente.
A partir de esa fecha, el Congreso cuenta con 180 días naturales para expedir la legislación secundaria. En consecuencia, el plazo vence a inicios de noviembre de 2026, lo cual explica la celeridad con la que avanza el proceso legislativo actual. Cabe destacar que este mecanismo de “ley general” ya se utiliza en México para otros delitos de alto impacto, como el secuestro y la desaparición forzada, precisamente porque permite establecer un piso mínimo de protección aplicable en los 32 estados.
Este mismo modelo normativo ha demostrado resultados mixtos en el pasado. Por ejemplo, la Ley General en materia de Desaparición Forzada, vigente desde 2017, logró unificar protocolos de búsqueda, aunque su implementación estatal siguió siendo desigual por falta de presupuesto. En consecuencia, los especialistas anticipan que el verdadero reto de la Ley General de Feminicidio no será su aprobación legislativa, sino su instrumentación efectiva en fiscalías con capacidades técnicas y financieras muy distintas entre sí.
| Do you have questions about this topic? The lawyers at Baráibar & Asociados in Mexico City can guide you. Schedule your consultation today. |
3. Contenido clave de la Ley General de Feminicidio: sanciones y agravantes
La propuesta enviada al Senado contempla penas de entre 50 y 70 años de prisión para quien cometa feminicidio. Además, introduce sanciones que van más allá de la privación de la libertad, entre ellas la pérdida de la patria potestad sobre hijos en común y la pérdida de derechos sucesorios respecto de los bienes de la víctima.
Penas de prisión y circunstancias agravantes
El proyecto contempla diecinueve circunstancias agravantes que incrementan la pena hasta en una mitad. Por ejemplo, se agravará el delito cuando la víctima estuviera embarazada, tuviera alguna discapacidad, ejerciera el periodismo, fuera defensora de derechos humanos o se encontrara en situación de movilidad. De esta manera, la ley busca reconocer contextos de vulnerabilidad que agravan la responsabilidad penal del agresor.
Otras agravantes contempladas incluyen la relación de parentesco o confianza entre víctima y agresor, el uso de violencia sexual previa, y la exposición pública del cuerpo de la víctima con fines de intimidación. Por su parte, los jueces deberán motivar de forma expresa cada agravante aplicado, lo cual busca evitar criterios discrecionales que hoy generan sentencias contradictorias entre circuitos judiciales distintos.
Igualmente relevante resulta la imprescriptibilidad del delito. En otras palabras, el paso del tiempo no extinguirá la posibilidad de investigar, sancionar o exigir justicia, ni tampoco la obligación de reparar el daño. Esta característica coloca al feminicidio en la misma categoría que otros delitos que el derecho internacional considera de especial gravedad.
Reparación integral del daño y pérdida de derechos
Por su parte, el título cuarto de la iniciativa regula los derechos de las víctimas indirectas y el mecanismo de reparación integral. Este mecanismo contempla componentes económicos, psicológicos y simbólicos, alineados con estándares interamericanos de derechos humanos. Sin embargo, la ley también exige que las fiscalías estatales cuenten con protocolos de investigación obligatorios y homogéneos, lo cual representa un reto operativo considerable para procuradurías con recursos limitados.
También, se prevé la creación de un registro nacional de casos de feminicidio, con información desagregada por entidad y por tipo de agravante. Este registro permitiría, en teoría, medir con mayor precisión la efectividad de las fiscalías y detectar patrones regionales de violencia. No obstante, especialistas en política pública advierten que un registro nacional solo será útil si cuenta con presupuesto etiquetado y mecanismos reales de rendición de cuentas.
4. Cronología legislativa: del Senado a la votación final
El proceso legislativo ha avanzado en etapas bien definidas. Primero, en abril de 2026, el Pleno del Senado aprobó la reforma constitucional habilitante. Después, en mayo, el Ejecutivo publicó el decreto en el DOF. Enseguida, el 15 de julio, la presidenta envió la iniciativa de ley general propiamente dicha. Finalmente, el 22 de julio, el Senado inició el análisis formal en comisiones, y el 29 de julio la Comisión para la Igualdad de Género aprobó la ruta crítica de discusión.
De acuerdo con el calendario legislativo difundido por el propio Senado, el dictamen final se elaborará entre el 25 y el 30 de agosto de 2026. Por lo tanto, aún no existe una ley general vigente al momento de esta publicación; lo que existe es una reforma constitucional en vigor y una iniciativa en discusión avanzada. No obstante, dado el respaldo político con el que cuenta la propuesta, es previsible que el Congreso concluya el proceso dentro del plazo constitucional de 180 días.
Vale la pena recordar que el plazo constitucional vence a inicios de noviembre de 2026. Por consiguiente, incluso si el Senado aprueba el dictamen a finales de agosto, todavía restará la discusión y votación en la Cámara de Diputados, así como el proceso de publicación en el DOF. En este sentido, resulta razonable estimar que la ley general entre en vigor entre septiembre y noviembre de 2026, salvo que surjan controversias que retrasen el dictamen.
5. Impacto para empresas, instituciones y sociedad civil
La nueva ley no solo interesa a fiscalías y tribunales. Las empresas, especialmente aquellas con áreas de cumplimiento, recursos humanos y responsabilidad social corporativa, también deberán revisar sus protocolos internos. Por ejemplo, los mecanismos de atención a víctimas de violencia de género dentro del entorno laboral tendrán que alinearse con los nuevos estándares de homologación.
Así mismo las instituciones educativas y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que colaboran con fiscalías en la atención a víctimas necesitarán actualizar sus protocolos de canalización. Asimismo, los despachos jurídicos que representan a víctimas o a personas imputadas deberán familiarizarse con los nuevos tipos penales y agravantes, dado que estos modificarán la estrategia procesal en cada caso. Por su parte, las áreas de comunicación corporativa deberán cuidar el lenguaje institucional al abordar públicamente este tema, evitando la revictimización.
También conviene mencionar a las aseguradoras y a las administradoras de fondos de pensiones, dado que la pérdida de derechos sucesorios prevista en la ley afectará directamente los procesos de sucesión de bienes y de pago de seguros de vida en casos de feminicidio. Del mismo modo, las instituciones bancarias que gestionan fideicomisos familiares deberán prever protocolos internos para atender estos escenarios conforme a la nueva legislación.
| » No enfrentes este proceso solo. En Baráibar & Asociados contamos con especialistas en Derecho Penal listos para defender tus intereses en Ciudad de México. |
6. ¿Qué deben hacer las empresas para prepararse ante la nueva ley?
En primer lugar, conviene realizar una auditoría de los protocolos internos de atención a la violencia de género, incluyendo canales de denuncia y rutas de acompañamiento psicológico. Adicionalmente, es recomendable capacitar a las áreas de recursos humanos y de cumplimiento sobre los nuevos tipos penales, agravantes y plazos de imprescriptibilidad que introduce la reforma.
Un tercer punto, con frecuencia subestimado, consiste en revisar las pólizas de seguro de vida y los fideicomisos corporativos que puedan verse afectados por la pérdida de derechos sucesorios del agresor. Los comités de ética empresarial, por su parte, deberían incorporar explícitamente el feminicidio y sus agravantes dentro de los códigos de conducta interna, sobre todo en organizaciones con operación en varios estados.
Recomendaciones específicas para el sector privado
Por ejemplo, las empresas con presencia en varios estados deberán homologar sus políticas internas conforme al nuevo estándar federal, en lugar de replicar criterios estatales dispersos. También resulta prudente revisar los contratos de prestación de servicios con terceros, sobre todo cuando existan cláusulas relacionadas con protocolos de seguridad o de atención a incidentes de violencia. Finalmente, es aconsejable mantener comunicación con asesores legales especializados, de manera que la organización pueda anticipar reformas a leyes secundarias, como el Código Penal Federal y los códigos penales estatales.
7. Comparación con la legislación penal vigente
Hoy, el feminicidio ya está tipificado en el Código Penal Federal y en la mayoría de los códigos estatales. Sin embargo, las penas, los elementos del tipo y los agravantes varían considerablemente entre entidades. Por ejemplo, algunos estados contemplan penas máximas de 45 o 50 años, mientras que otros no reconocen ciertas circunstancias agravantes que la nueva ley sí incorporará.
Por su parte, la Ley General de Feminicidio busca eliminar precisamente esa dispersión normativa. De este modo, una vez vigente, funcionará como piso mínimo obligatorio para todas las legislaciones locales, las cuales deberán armonizarse en un plazo determinado por los artículos transitorios. Cabe destacar que esta armonización no ocurrirá de manera automática, sino que exigirá reformas específicas en cada congreso estatal.
Estados con códigos penales más rezagados en la materia probablemente enfrentarán mayor presión legislativa y presupuestal para cumplir el nuevo estándar federal a tiempo.
🔗 ENLACE INTERNO: hecho delictivo en órdenes de aprehensión → https://baraibar.com.mx/hecho-delictivo-en-ordenes-de-aprehension-y-vinculacion-a-proceso/
🔗 ENLACE INTERNO: principio de inmediación penal → https://baraibar.com.mx/principio-de-inmediacion-penal-garantia-de-un-juicio-justo/
🔗 ENLACE EXTERNO: Decreto DOF, reforma al artículo 73 constitucional → https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5786617&fecha=06%2F05%2F2026
🔗 ENLACE EXTERNO: Comunicado oficial del Senado sobre la reforma constitucional → https://comunicacionsocial.senado.gob.mx/informacion/comunicados/14975-el-pleno-del-senado-de-la-republica-aprueba-reforma-constitucional-para-combatir-el-feminicidio
| » Protege los intereses de tu organización con la asesoría legal experta de Baráibar & Asociados frente a este nuevo marco normativo. |
Conclusion
La Ley General de Feminicidio representa un cambio estructural en la manera en que México investiga y sanciona este delito. Todavía falta la votación final, prevista para finales de agosto de 2026, pero el rumbo legislativo ya está trazado. Por lo tanto, anticiparse a sus efectos, tanto en el ámbito penal como en el corporativo, resulta la estrategia más prudente para despachos, empresas y organizaciones sociales.
Mientras el Congreso concluye el dictamen, conviene revisar protocolos internos, actualizar políticas de recursos humanos y capacitar a los equipos legales sobre los nuevos tipos penales y agravantes. De lo contrario, las organizaciones podrían enfrentar contingencias legales o reputacionales una vez que la ley entre en vigor. En Baráibar & Asociados damos seguimiento puntual a este proceso legislativo para mantener informados a nuestros clientes y anticipar cada fase de su implementación.
Preguntas frecuentes sobre la Ley General de Feminicidio
¿Qué es la Ley General de Feminicidio? Es la legislación que homologará los tipos penales, sanciones y protocolos de investigación del feminicidio en todo México, con fundamento en la reforma al artículo 73 constitucional publicada en el DOF el 6 de mayo de 2026.
¿Cuáles son las penas que propone la nueva ley? La iniciativa contempla penas de 50 a 70 años de prisión, además de la pérdida de la patria potestad y de derechos sucesorios, conforme al proyecto de 62 artículos enviado al Senado el 15 de julio de 2026.
¿Cuándo entrará en vigor la Ley General de Feminicidio? Aún no tiene fecha exacta. El dictamen final se prepara entre el 25 y el 30 de agosto de 2026, dentro del plazo de 180 días que marca el artículo transitorio de la reforma constitucional.
¿La ley aplica igual en todos los estados? Sí, ese es su propósito. Una vez vigente, funcionará como piso mínimo obligatorio, por lo que los códigos penales estatales deberán armonizarse conforme a los artículos transitorios correspondientes.
¿Las empresas ante esta reforma, qué deben hacer ? Conviene revisar protocolos de atención a la violencia de género, capacitar a recursos humanos y actualizar políticas internas, en línea con el nuevo estándar homologado que propone la iniciativa federal.
¿El feminicidio prescribe conforme a la nueva ley? No. La iniciativa establece expresamente que el delito, la sanción y la reparación del daño serán imprescriptibles, de manera que el paso del tiempo no impedirá investigar ni sancionar el caso.
Legal references
- Diario Oficial de la Federación, Decreto de reforma al artículo 73 constitucional, 6 de mayo de 2026.
- Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, artículo 73, fracción XXI, inciso a).
- Código Penal Federal, Libro Segundo, Título Decimonoveno, Capítulo V (feminicidio).
- Iniciativa de Ley General para Prevenir, Investigar, Sancionar y Reparar el Daño por el Delito de Feminicidio, presentada el 15 de julio de 2026.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.
by paulina@baraibar.com.mx | Jun 29, 2026 | Criminal law
| Manuel Baráibar Tovar contributed to the construction of jurisprudence on the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings in the Mexican oral accusatory system. |
This principle is one of the cornerstones of the oral adversarial system established in Article 20 of the Constitution. Essentially, it requires that the judge who presided over the presentation of evidence in the oral trial be the same judge who issues the sentence. However, this is not always the case, and the procedural consequences of violating it are significant.
Knowing the criteria of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) on this principle is essential for defendants and their defenders in Mexico.
Principle of immediacy in criminal law within the accusatory system
The principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings establishes that all hearings in the oral trial must be held before the judge, who cannot delegate their functions to another person. This guarantee ensures the judge's direct contact with the evidence: they hear statements from witnesses, experts, and the accused, observe their behavior, and form their conviction based on what they perceive during the hearing.
Far from being a mere formality, this principle constitutes a substantive guarantee. Its purpose is to protect the defendant's right to be tried by the same judge who directly reviewed the evidence.
Furthermore, the adversarial oral system was created to correct the shortcomings of the inquisitorial model, in which the investigating judge rarely handed down the sentence. In this context, the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings strengthens judicial impartiality and the reliability of decisions.
What do the Constitution and the National Code say about principio de inmediación penal?
Article 20 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States establishes that criminal justice shall be accusatory and oral, governed by the principles of publicity, adversarial proceedings, concentration, continuity, and immediacy. Therefore, the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings is not merely a jurisprudential criterion: it has constitutional status, and its violation can compromise the validity of the entire trial.
For its part, the National Code of Criminal Procedure (CNPP) elaborates on this principle in Article 9, stating that no procedural action may be delegated. Additionally, Article 67 of the CNPP stipulates that when a judge is replaced, the actions previously taken must be repeated before the new judge.
The jurisprudence of the SCJN interprets this mandate strictly.
| ⚖️ Do you have questions about your rights in a criminal trial? The lawyers at Baráibar & Asociados in Mexico City can guide you. Schedule your consultation today. |
How has the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) defined the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings?
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has issued important rulings on the scope of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings. Specifically, it maintains that it would be pointless for the judge to hear the parties, take the defendant's statement, and question the witnesses if this is done in isolated instances or before different judges.
|
“The principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings is the difference between a genuine oral trial and a sham trial in the adversarial system. When the judge who hands down the sentence was not the one who heard the evidence, the decision loses its most fundamental procedural legitimacy. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has been clear on this point, and at Baráibar & Asociados we have successfully invoked it in cases where attempts were made to replace the judge after the evidence had been presented. My participation in shaping the legal precedent allowed me, with great pride, to contribute to the development of the interpretation that now protects this principle in the Mexican adversarial system.”
— Manuel Baráibar Tovar, Esq., Founding Partner, Baráibar & Associates
|
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) also determined that the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings operates as an essential procedural rule. This implies the presence of the judge throughout the entire oral trial hearing, from the presentation of evidence to the pronouncement of the sentence.
The judge who hears the oral trial must be the same one who hands down the sentence.
The rule is clear: the judge presiding over the oral trial must issue the sentence.
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) maintains that this requirement cannot be waived for reasons of administrative convenience or the workload of the Judiciary. If the judge is removed, reassigned, or replaced for any reason after the presentation of evidence has begun, the oral trial must be held again before the new judge.
Furthermore, a violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings produces a specific procedural consequence: the nullity of the oral trial. This means that a guilty verdict issued by a judge who did not witness the presentation of evidence can be overturned through an appeal or a direct amparo proceeding.
However, there is an important clarification that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has established. This principle cannot be absolutely demanded at all stages of the process. The reason is that the constitutional reform prioritized guaranteeing judicial impartiality: a judge who knows all the background information from the beginning could lose objectivity when issuing a ruling.
When is the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings violated?
Three main allegations of rape.
The jurisprudence of the SCJN identifies three main assumptions of violation of the principle of criminal immediacy.
First assumption. The judge who hands down the sentence is different from the one who presided over the presentation of evidence, without the evidence having been presented again before the new judge.
Second assumption. The judge was not present at all the hearings of the oral trial, either because he delegated his presence to another official or because he was unjustifiably absent during the presentation of relevant evidence.
Third assumption. There are excessive and unjustified interruptions between sessions of the oral trial that disrupt the concentration and continuity of the proceedings. In these cases, the judge loses a direct and complete understanding of the evidence.
An oral trial divided into sessions widely separated from each other can compromise the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings, especially when the judge is replaced between sessions.
| 📋 Don't face criminal proceedings without specialized defense. At Baráibar & Asociados, we have experts in Criminal Law ready to defend your interests in Mexico City. |
Procedural consequences: the nullity of the oral trial
- As a rule, the violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings gives rise to the nullity of the oral trial.
- As a resultThe trial must be held again, with the full presentation of the evidence before the new judge, who will be the same one who issues the sentence.
- This nullityHowever, it is not updated automatically, but must be alleged and proven through the corresponding resources and means of appeal.
- The Supreme Court also He pointed out that the nullity resulting from the violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings does not always imply the immediate release of the accused.
Limits of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings according to the SCJN
As noted, the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings cannot be absolutely demanded at all stages of the criminal process. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has recognized that this principle operates primarily in the oral trial phase, not in prior stages such as the investigation, the initial hearing, or the preliminary hearing. Therefore, the fact that different judges are involved in these stages does not in itself violate the principle of immediacy.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has determined that the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings cannot be invoked to demand that the same judge preside over the case from its very inception. Strictly speaking, the principle requires that the judge presiding over the presentation of evidence in the oral trial be the same judge who hands down the sentence.
In that regard, it should be noted that the replacement of the judge before the formal start of the oral trial does not violate the principle, provided that the new judge presides over the trial hearings in their entirety and is the one who ultimately delivers the sentence.
| ⚖️ Protect your rights with expert legal advice from Baráibar & Asociados. We understand the accusatory system and know how to defend you. |
Conclusion: the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings protects the legitimacy of the trial
The principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings is a constitutional guarantee that ensures that the oral trial is what it should be: a direct and personal evaluation of the evidence by the person who will make the most important decision regarding the defendant's freedom. Its violation is not a procedural technicality. It is a real infringement of the right to a fair trial.
At Baráibar & Asociados, we have specialists in Criminal Law who have in-depth knowledge of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation's jurisprudence on the oral adversarial system and who have participated in the development of these legal precedents. If the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings was violated in your case, contact us to evaluate the available defense options.
Frequently asked questions about the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings
1. In which article of the Constitution is the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings found?
The principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings is enshrined in Article 20 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which establishes the principles of the oral adversarial system: publicity, adversarial proceedings, concentration, continuity, and immediacy. Its procedural development is found in Article 9 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure (CNPP).
2. What happens if the judge presiding over the oral trial is replaced before issuing a sentence?
If the trial judge is replaced before sentencing, the trial must be held again before the new judge, including the full presentation of evidence. If a sentence is issued without complying with this requirement, it constitutes a violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings and is subject to appeal. Legal basis: Articles 9 and 67 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure; Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) ruling ADR 492/2017.
3. Does a violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings lead to the release of the accused?
Not necessarily. A violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings results in the annulment of the oral trial and requires a new one. This does not imply an automatic acquittal of the accused, but rather that the process must be restarted respecting the guarantees of the adversarial system. However, in certain cases, it may justify a review of the pretrial detention measure while the proceedings are being restarted.
4. Does the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings apply during the investigation stage?
No. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has determined that the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings operates primarily during the oral trial phase, not in prior stages such as the investigation, the initial hearing, or the intermediate stage. Therefore, it is valid for different judges to preside over these stages without this constituting a violation. Legal basis: SCJN rulings ADR 492/2017 and ADR 1644/2021.
5. How is a violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings challenged?
It may be challenged by means of an appeal against the final judgment, arguing a violation of procedural law that affects the defense and impacts the outcome of the ruling. Alternatively, it may be raised in a direct amparo proceeding. Legal basis: Articles 467, section IV, and 468 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure; Article 170 of the Amparo Law.
6. Can it be invoked if the judge was absent during a hearing?
Yes. If the judge was not present at all hearings of the oral trial—either because they delegated their presence to another official or because they were absent during the presentation of key evidence—this may constitute a violation of the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings. The defense must accurately document the absence and demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the trial. Legal basis: Article 20, Section A, Paragraph V, CPEUM; Article 9 CNPP.
Legal references:
🔗 Article 20 of the Constitution — Principles of the accusatory system (CPEUM)
🔗 SCJN — Principle of Immediacy in Criminal Justice: Jurisprudence Notebook (2024)
🔗 Criminal act in arrest warrants and indictment — Baráibar & Associates
🔗 Constitutional Reform June 2026 — Postponement of Judicial Election
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.
by paulina@baraibar.com.mx | May 12, 2026 | Criminal law
Criminal act It can no longer be treated as an “automatic” phrase to justify a arrest warrant or a order to proceed to trialSince March 2026, a mandatory criterion emphasizes that, by last ratio and the guarantor function of the criminal type, the Prosecutor's Office must provide minimum test data that show in fact the basic characteristics of the alleged crime, before affecting freedom (article 16 of the Constitution).
In practice, this standard reorders the debate: it is not enough to narrate, one has to minimally checkFor companies and individuals under investigation in Mexico City, this opens a clear defensive avenue to combat "generic" accusations and, at the same time, compels them to strengthen compliance strategies and evidence management.
1) What changed in 2026: “criminal act” as the minimum verifiable factual element
The widely disseminated criterion as “CRIMINAL ACT. ITS BASIC CONNOTATION IN LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAST RESORT AND GUARANTEE FUNCTION OF THE CRIMINAL TYPE” It upholds an operational idea: the “criminal act” of Article 16 of the Constitution requires a minimum evidentiary sufficiency that shows, in the factual world, a behavior with basic features of the criminal offense preliminarily attributed. That burden falls on the Prosecutor's Office and is essential requirement both for arrest warrant as for link to process, due to its direct or indirect impact on freedom.
Why does it matter for an arrest warrant (art. 16 CPEUM)
Article 16 of the Constitution requires (among other things) that get data that establish that the act has been committed and that there is a probability of participation.
The point of criterion 2026 is that this “fact” cannot be an empty label: it must have minimum anchorage in test data that show the basic materiality of typical behavior.
Why does it matter for indictment (art. 316 CNPP)
Article 316 of the CNPP requires evidence establishing that an act defined as a crime by law was committed, understanding that such evidence exists when there is reasonable indications that allow one to suppose.
The 2026 criterion pushes for those “reasonable indications” to translate into verifiable factual features of the criminal type, not only in broad inferences.
2) Date of mandatory nature and actual procedural scope
This criterion was published in the Weekly March 6, 2026 and it was considered mandatory application from 9 March 2026.
Practical scope:
- It becomes a control parameter for control judges when analyzing arrest requests and to resolve link to process.
- The cost of litigating with "textbook" charges increases: if the prosecution does not ground the criminal offense in verifiable facts, the defense has a technical argument to deny, revoke o protect.
⚖️ spin: Do you have questions about this topic? The lawyers at Baráibar & Asociados in Mexico City can guide you. Schedule your consultation today.
3) The core of the criterion: last resort + guarantee function of the criminal type
The criterion explains that criminal law, being last ratioIt must be used with a reinforced standard when the procedural act affects liberty. Furthermore, the guarantee function of the criminal type requires that only the commission of conduct typified (and not “similar”) justify intense measures such as apprehension or continuation of the process.
What does “guarantee function” mean in litigation language?
In court proceedings, the "guarantee function" translates into control:
- Delimit the punishable conduct (what is and is not included in the type).
- Demand that the Prosecutor's Office show basic facts that coincide with that framework.
- To prevent the process from being used as an "extended investigation" with already restricted freedom.
Last resort as a minimum evidentiary standard, not as discourse
The criterion does not say "prove the complete crime" at the initial stage. It says: contribute the minimum verifiable amount of the type charged, because the State is using its most powerful tool. That difference is key: it's not a request for an early sentence, it's a demand. factual floor.
4) Arrest warrant: where the Prosecutor's request breaks with this standard
In the CNPP, the judge can order a summons, appearance, or apprehension When a complaint is filed, the Public Prosecutor's Office announces data that establishes the criminal act and the probability of authorship, and—for apprehension— need for caution.
Using the 2026 criterion, typical vulnerable points are:
A) “Generic” facts without typical features
Example: “seized resources”, “defrauded”, “threatened”, “altered documents”, without describing as, when, with what medium, with what resultand without supporting data. The standard requires showing basic characteristics of the type (conduct/object/result relevant to the crime).
B) Inferential leaps without hard data
When the Prosecutor requests arrest with inferences (“because of his position he should have known”, “he had access”, “he is an administrator”), without minimal external data (traceability, messages, preliminary expert reports, records, witnesses with verifiable context).
C) “Need for caution” as a crutch
Although the criterion focuses on "criminal act", in practice it requires reviewing whether the apprehension is being used to drive without basic factual support. If the "fact" is weak, the caution becomes disproportionate.
Typical business risk (CDMX): Internal complaints or those from former employees that escalate to a formal case file; if the company fails to preserve evidence and a clear narrative, the prosecution can fill in the gaps with assumptions. This criterion makes it more cost-effective to litigate the standard from the outset.
5) Linking to the process: the debate is no longer just a probability of participation
Article 316 CNPP requires evidence of the criminal act and the probability of intervention.
The 2026 criterion strengthens the first component: criminal act as verifiable minimum factual of the basic characteristics of the crime.
How to use it strategically in initial audiences:
- Separate The discussion: first “criminal act” (factual basis), then “probability”.
- Ask the judge to identify what basic typical features They are considered satisfied and with what information (not with what “said”).
- Attacking the “minimum typicality” when the imputation is narrative but not verifiable.
Common defensive mistakes (that you should avoid):
- Discussing “innocence” or “full proof” (is not the standard).
- To go straight to subtle contradictions without first addressing the lack of basic features of the type.
- Do not tie the argument to the impact on freedom (precautionary measures, appearances, reputational restriction, etc.).
Don't face this process alone. At Baráibar & Asociados, we have criminal law specialists ready to defend your interests in Mexico City.
6) Tactical checklist: what the prosecution should provide and what the defense should demand
This criterion functions as a litigable checklist.
The minimum that must exist (depending on the crime)
Without inventing “universal lists”, the logic is: basic features of the type + minimum test data that makes them verifiable.
Examples of “minimum verifiable” (in the abstract):
- Assets: traceability of disposal, specific impact, base document/record, identification of the asset/value.
- Documentaries: existence of the document, attributed intervention, preliminary expertise or verifiable objective feature.
- Threats/violence: context, medium, basic content, temporality, objective element that supports the claim.
How to structure a defensive objection
- “Your Honor, even if the narrative is granted for now, no minimum data that factually demonstrate the basic characteristics of criminal type X; due to its guarantee function and as a last resort, freedom cannot be affected by an unverifiable fact.”
Risk: that the judge “supplants” the standard
The real danger is that the judge will mentally "fill in the gaps" left by the prosecution ("it sounds like fraud"). This criterion provides grounds for demanding a more thorough ruling. methodical: typical feature + fact.
7) Impact on companies: criminal compliance and evidence management from day 1
For companies (fintech, retail, construction, logistics, pharma, tech) the 2026 standard has two interpretations:
1) More powerful early defense
If the case file was built with vague testimonies or disconnected documents, the defense can halt the arrest/indictment with an approach of verifiable minimum typicality.
2) Greater internal demands
Companies must quickly build their "verifiable factual explanation":
- Preservation of emails/chats, logs, accounting records.
- Internal chain of custody (without replacing the authority, but avoiding destruction/alteration).
- Internal research protocols (to avoid creating contradictions that could later be used as "facts" against the company or its executives).
Frequent gray area: Poorly documented internal investigations that create “facts” without technical support. The 2026 criterion rewards accuracy and penalizes narrative.
8) Protection strategy: when this criterion is decisive
Judgment itself is built in scenarios of arrest warrant and link to process, and states that Article 16 requires that minimum threshold.
When is it usually decisive:
- When the judicial resolution does not identify what data support the basic characteristics of the crime.
- When the Public Prosecutor "announces" data, but in court it does not translate into verifiable facts.
- When the resolution relies on standard phrases (“reasonable indications”) without explanation indicios de qué.
How this translates into procedural risk for the Prosecutor's Office:
- Higher probability of revocation/denial,
- Greater exposure to protection due to insufficient motivation,
- Greater pressure to "strengthen" cases before requesting restrictive measures.
Protect your freedom and your defense strategy with expert legal advice from Baráibar & Asociados in Mexico City.
Conclusion
The mandatory criterion of March 2026 redefines the concept of criminal act in its correct place: a verifiable minimum factual that the Prosecutor's Office must show to justify measures that impact freedom, consistent with the last ratio and the guarantor function of the criminal type.
For criminal defense (and for business risk management) the message is clear: litigation is no longer won with rhetoric; it is won by forcing the criminal type to land on verifiable basic facts, from the first act that intends to restrict rights.
FAQs (Mexico) — Snippet-type answers (45–60 words)
1) What is a “criminal act” for the purposes of an arrest warrant?
The reported fact is that la ley señala como delito, supported by data that allow establishing what occurred and that there is a probability of participation. The constitutional standard derives from Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution and is operationalized in the National Code of Criminal Procedure. In 2026, it was emphasized that there must be a verifiable minimum of facts.
2) Does the prosecution have to prove the entire crime in order to bring charges?
No. For linkage, the CNPP requires test data e reasonable indications, not conclusive proof. However, there must be a verifiable minimum of the basic features of the imputed crime, in accordance with the mandatory criterion of 2026 and article 316 CNPP.
3) What happens if the arrest warrant is based on generic facts?
If the application and the resolution do not show minimum data that factually demonstrate the basic characteristics of the crime, a violation of article 16 CPEUM can be argued due to the insufficiency of the "criminal act", and judicial control or protection can be sought as appropriate.
4) Since when is the criterion “CRIMINAL ACT. ITS BASIC CONNOTATION…” mandatory?
It was published on March 6, 2026 and it was considered mandatory from March 9, 2026, according to the Gazette of the Judicial Weekly of the Federation. This impacts decisions regarding arrest and indictment.
5) How does Article 141 of the CNPP relate to the “criminal act”?
Article 141 of the CNPP allows for summons, appearance, or arrest when there is a complaint/accusation and the Public Prosecutor presents information establishing the criminal act and the probability of authorship; for arrest, there is also a need for precautionary measures. Criterion 2026 requires that this “act” have a minimum verifiable factual basis.
6) What should the defense request in the hearing to apply this standard?
It must require the judge to identify what basic features of the criminal type are considered satisfied and with what information specific, avoiding generic motivations. The basis is in article 16 CPEUM, 316 CNPP and the mandatory criterion of 2026 on “criminal act”.
References (official) + latest reform
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship.
SEO Summary
- Focus Keyphrase:
- Keywords secundarias: artículo 16 constitucional, artículo 316 CNPP, artículo 141 CNPP, última ratio penal, función garantista del tipo penal, datos de prueba mínimos, juez de control CDMX, defensa penal estratégica
- Meta Description: Criminal act in 2026: minimum verifiable standard for arrest warrant and indictment. Avoids risks and nullities.
- Meta Title: Criminal act and arrest/indictment order: minimum verifiable standard 2026
- Slug SEO: hecho-delictivo-orden-aprehension-vinculacion-estandar-minimo-2026
- Breadcrumb: Inicio > Penal > Hecho delictivo y órdenes de aprehensión 2026
- Categoría: Penal
- Intención de búsqueda: preventiva + informacional (con componente transaccional)
- Outbound links: CPEUM Diputados; CNPP Diputados; Gaceta SCJN (PDF)
- Internal links (sugeridos): “Amparo contra orden de aprehensión en CDMX”; “Audiencia inicial y vinculación a proceso: estrategia”; “Medidas cautelares: riesgos y defensa”
- Keyphrase Density (estimada): 0.8%–1.2%
- Flesch estimado: 58–63
- Voz pasiva estimada: < 12%
- “Orden de aprehensión en CDMX: cómo combatir la necesidad de cautela (2026)”
- Keyword: necesidad de cautela orden de aprehensión
- Intención: preventiva/defensiva
- Relación: complementa el estándar de hecho delictivo con el eje cautelar
- Potencial comercial: defensa en audiencia y amparo
- “Vinculación a proceso: cómo desmontar imputaciones genéricas con el artículo 316 CNPP (2026)”
- Keyword: artículo 316 CNPP vinculación a proceso
- Intención: informacional + transaccional
- Relación: baja a técnica de audiencia inicial
- Potencial comercial: litigio estratégico penal
- “Evidencia digital y datos de prueba mínimos: guía de preservación para empresas investigadas (CDMX 2026)”
- Keyword: preservación de evidencia digital empresa investigación penal
- Intención: preventiva/compliance
- Relación: fortalece el “mínimo verificable” desde el día 1
- Potencial comercial: compliance penal corporativo y gestión de crisis
