[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
186 views1 page

IBP v. Atienza (DIGEST)

This case discusses whether a court can suspend criminal proceedings against Jose Anselmo Cadiz motu proprio, or on its own accord, due to the existence of a prejudicial question. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) a court can only suspend a criminal action upon a petition filed, not motu proprio, and (2) the determination of whether a prejudicial question exists that would warrant suspension should be made in the criminal case itself, not in an appeal from a related civil case. A prejudicial question refers to an issue in a prior civil case that would determine whether criminal charges may proceed.

Uploaded by

Gennard Michael Angelo Angeles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
186 views1 page

IBP v. Atienza (DIGEST)

This case discusses whether a court can suspend criminal proceedings against Jose Anselmo Cadiz motu proprio, or on its own accord, due to the existence of a prejudicial question. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) a court can only suspend a criminal action upon a petition filed, not motu proprio, and (2) the determination of whether a prejudicial question exists that would warrant suspension should be made in the criminal case itself, not in an appeal from a related civil case. A prejudicial question refers to an issue in a prior civil case that would determine whether criminal charges may proceed.

Uploaded by

Gennard Michael Angelo Angeles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

or not the criminal action may proceed.

277. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Atienza


G.R. No. 175241 February 24, 2010.

Case digest by Gennard Michael Angelo Angeles

FACTS
In June 2006, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
through its National President Jose Anselmo Cadiz, filed with
the Office of the City Mayor of an application for a permit to
rally at the foot of Mendiola Bridge. Mayor Atienza granted
the permit but indicated therein Plaza Miranda as the venue,
instead of Mendiola Bridge. Aggrieved, Cadiz filed a petition
for certiorari before the CA assailing the permit for being
violative of their right to freedom of expression.
Meanwhile, the IBP pushed through with the rally at the
Mendiola Bridge. Thus, the Manila Police District (MPD) filed
a criminal case against Cadiz for violating the Public
Assembly Act in staging a rally at a venue not indicated in the
permit. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Atienza. 
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Cadiz prayed for the
suspension of the criminal case against him on the ground
that the certiorari case he filed against Atienza is a prejudicial
question to the criminal case.

ISSUE/S

(1)  Whether or not the court can motu proprio suspend


the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial
question.

HELD

(1)  No, the court can only suspend the criminal


action upon a petition but it has no authority to
order its dismissal.

Under Secs. 6-7. Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, the


existence of a prejudicial question is a ground in a
petition to suspend proceedings in a criminal action.
Since suspension of the proceedings in the criminal
action may be made only upon petition and not at the
instance of the judge or the investigating prosecutor,
the latter cannot take cognizance of a claim of
prejudicial question without a petition to suspend
being filed. Since a petition to suspend can be filed
only in the criminal action, the determination of the
pendency of a prejudicial question should be made at
the first instance in the criminal action, and not before
this Court in an appeal from the civil action. The rule,
therefore, as it appears, precludes a motu proprio
suspension by the court of a criminal action.

Section 6. Suspension by reason of


prejudicial question. — A petition for
suspension of the criminal action based
upon the pendency of a prejudicial question
in a civil action may be filed in the office of
the prosecutor or the court conducting the
preliminary investigation. When the criminal
action has been filed in court for trial, the
petition to suspend shall be filed in the
same criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests.

Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question.


— The elements of a prejudicial question
are: (a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the
resolution of such issue determines whether

You might also like