G.R. No. L-27277. May 31, 1971.
ESTELA ISIP, PROCESO BRAGAIS, SALVADOR CASA, PASTOR ABAD, JOSE SURBAN, AUGUSTO ANTONIO, BALDOMERO DAET and ENGRACIO SOMIDO, petitioners, vs. HON. FELICIANO S. GONZALES, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes, and FRANCISCO A. PERFECTO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Francisco A. Perfecto, a defeated congressional candidate in the 1965 elections, filed a criminal complaint against petitioners before the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes. The complaint alleged a conspiracy to violate the Revised Election Code by using white carbon paper to identify a vote. The court set the case for preliminary investigation. Meanwhile, Perfecto had also filed an election protest against the proclaimed winner, Jose M. Alberto, with the House Electoral Tribunal, docketed as Protest No. 168. This protest similarly raised allegations regarding the use of carbon paper to identify votes.
During the pendency of the preliminary investigation in the criminal case, petitioners filed a motion to suspend the proceedings. They argued that the election protest before the House Electoral Tribunal presented a prejudicial question, as its resolution on whether carbon paper was used would determine the criminal action’s viability. The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling that a motion to suspend based on a prejudicial question is premature during a preliminary investigation. The judge held that such a motion may only be presented after a finding of probable cause and the filing of an information, when the criminal action formally proceeds to trial.

ISSUE

May a motion to suspend a criminal proceeding, on the ground of a prejudicial question pending in a separate civil case, be properly entertained during the stage of preliminary investigation?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court upheld the respondent judge’s order denying the motion to suspend. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct purposes and procedural stages of a preliminary investigation versus a criminal trial. A preliminary investigation is merely an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is a pre-trial, inquisitorial process to ascertain the necessity of filing a formal information.
Rule 111, Section 5 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 111, Section 7) explicitly provides that a petition for suspension of the criminal action based on a prejudicial question “may only be presented by any party before or during the trial of the criminal action.” The Court, citing Desalla v. City Attorney of Quezon City, clarified that “trial” refers to the proceeding after the case is brought to court by an information, not the preliminary investigation stage. Since the case was only at the preliminary investigation, the suspension was premature. The proper course was to await the outcome of the investigation. If no probable cause is found, the case is dismissed. If an information is filed, then the accused may, at the trial stage, invoke the pendency of a prejudicial question. The Court further noted the public policy behind promptly prosecuting election offenses, as delay could prejudice the administration of justice. The petition for certiorari was dismissed.