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:

Can the court motu proprio suspend the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial question? 

Held: 

Under the Rules, 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. (IBP vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, February 24, 2010)