{"id":700,"date":"2026-05-12T20:57:49","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T02:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/baraibar.com.mx\/?p=700"},"modified":"2026-05-12T20:57:49","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T02:57:49","slug":"hecho-delictivo-en-ordenes-de-aprehension-y-vinculacion-a-proceso","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/baraibar.com.mx\/en\/hecho-delictivo-en-ordenes-de-aprehension-y-vinculacion-a-proceso\/","title":{"rendered":"Criminal act in arrest warrants and indictment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Criminal act<\/strong> It can no longer be treated as an \u201cautomatic\u201d phrase to justify a arrest warrant<\/strong> or a order to proceed to trial<\/strong>Since March 2026, a mandatory criterion emphasizes that, by last ratio<\/strong> and the guarantor function<\/strong> of the criminal type, the Prosecutor's Office must provide minimum test data<\/strong> that show in fact<\/strong> the basic characteristics of the alleged crime, before affecting freedom (article 16 of the Constitution).<\/p>\n

In practice, this standard reorders the debate: it is not enough to narrate<\/strong>, one has to minimally check<\/strong>For 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.<\/p>\n

\n

1) What changed in 2026: \u201ccriminal act\u201d as the minimum verifiable factual element<\/h2>\n

The widely disseminated criterion as \u201cCRIMINAL ACT. ITS BASIC CONNOTATION IN LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAST RESORT AND GUARANTEE FUNCTION OF THE CRIMINAL TYPE\u201d<\/strong> It upholds an operational idea: the \u201ccriminal act\u201d of Article 16 of the Constitution requires a minimum evidentiary sufficiency<\/strong> that shows, in the factual world, a behavior with basic features<\/strong> of the criminal offense preliminarily attributed. That burden falls on the Prosecutor's Office and is essential requirement<\/strong> both for arrest warrant<\/strong> as for link to process<\/strong>, due to its direct or indirect impact on freedom.<\/p>\n

Why does it matter for an arrest warrant (art. 16 CPEUM)<\/h3>\n

Article 16 of the Constitution requires (among other things) that get data<\/strong> that establish that the act has been committed and that there is a probability of participation.
The point of criterion 2026 is that this \u201cfact\u201d cannot be an empty label: it must have minimum anchorage<\/strong> in test data that show the basic materiality<\/strong> of typical behavior.<\/p>\n

Why does it matter for indictment (art. 316 CNPP)<\/h3>\n

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<\/strong> that allow one to suppose.
The 2026 criterion pushes for those \u201creasonable indications\u201d to translate into verifiable factual features<\/strong> of the criminal type, not only in broad inferences.<\/p>\n

\n

2) Date of mandatory nature and actual procedural scope<\/h2>\n

This criterion was published in the Weekly March 6, 2026<\/strong> and it was considered mandatory application from 9 March 2026<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Practical scope:<\/strong><\/p>\n