César Arellano García
La Jornada Newspaper
Monday, November 3, 2025, p. 19
For the first time, the Investigation Commission of the Judicial Disciplinary Court suspended a district judge, based in Colima, who incurred serious misconduct in the administration of justice due to a notorious deviation from legality, by reducing the sentences agreed upon in at least four matters related to abbreviated procedures, related to the crimes of carrying and possession of firearms and narcotics.
It is the first case resolved by the Investigation Commission, after its installation on October 29. The Judicial Administration Body (OAJ) reported that the judge did not act as guarantor of compliance with the legal requirements, on the contrary, he assumed repeated and systematic conduct, exceeding his powers and contravening the guiding principles of criminal procedure.
“This procedure contravened the provisions of sections III and IX of article 187 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch of the Federation, for which the Investigation Commission determined the suspension, in order to prevent it from continuing to put the correct administration of justice at risk.”
He indicated that the provisional suspension was notified to the judge and is intended to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence; prevent the continuation of the detrimental effects of the alleged administrative fault; avoid obstruction of the proper development of the administrative responsibility investigation procedure; and safeguard the integrity of people “potentially affected by serious conduct, in accordance with the provisions of articles 123 of the General Law of Administrative Responsibilities and article 98 of the General Agreement of the Plenary of the then Federal Judiciary Council that establishes the provisions regarding administrative responsibilities, financial situation, control and accountability.”
Violation of due process
The OAJ pointed out that the judge repeatedly reduced the sentences agreed upon between the prosecutor’s office and the defendants who opted for the abbreviated procedure, “a procedure that was corrected by appeal courts that in their resolutions indicated that this act was contrary to law. It was found that in addition to the reduction of the agreed sentences, it granted benefits of a conditional sentence, which generated violations of due process, and did not fully comply with the requirements of origin to initiate the abbreviated procedure.”
