Ang v. Bello
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ang Kek Chen was charged with "Maltreatment," "Threats," and "Slight Physical Injuries" in Criminal Cases Nos. 021429, 021430, and 021431 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila. Procedural History: After the prosecution presented its evidence, Ang's Demurrer to Evidence was denied. This denial was elevated to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on certiorari and prohibition, which was also denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's order. The Petition: The presiding judge of the MTC branch where the cases were pending was promoted. The respondent judge, as officer-in-charge, directed the return of the case records for re-raffle. Petitioner alleged he received the order to re-raffle only after the cases had already been re-raffled and assigned to the respondent judge. Petitioner's motion to re-raffle and subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied. This led to the present petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in the manner of the raffle and praying for the dismissal of the cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in the manner he conducted the raffle of Criminal Cases Nos. 021429, 021430, and 021431, in violation of Administrative Circular No. 7. Whether the Court may order the outright dismissal of Criminal Case No. 021430 in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction due to lack of evidence.
Ruling
The Court set aside the order of the respondent court denying petitioner's motion to re-raffle the criminal cases, except for Criminal Case No. 021430 for threats, which was dismissed. Criminal Cases Nos. 021429 and 021431 were remanded to the Executive Judge for re-raffle in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 7.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in the raffle of cases: The Court held that the principal issue of alleged grave abuse of discretion in violation of Administrative Circular No. 7 was not a trivial one. The raffle of cases is of vital importance to the administration of justice because it is intended to insure impartial adjudication and obviate public suspicion regarding the assignment of cases to predetermined judges. A violation or disregard of the Court's circular on how the raffle of cases should be conducted is not to be countenanced, as a party has the right to be heard by an impartial and unbiased tribunal. When the respondent judge conducted the raffle in apparent violation of Circular No. 7, he not only aroused suspicion of ulterior motive but also violated the cardinal rule that all judicial processes must be done above board. The procedure of raffling cases is considered an important element of judicial proceedings, designed to give assurance to the parties that the court hearing their case would be impartial. Therefore, the petition was found meritorious on this point. On the issue of outright dismissal of cases invoking equity jurisdiction: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that Criminal Case No. 021430 (for Light Threats) should be dismissed for lack of evidence. Even a previous judge, Hon. Manuel T. Reyes, had opined that there was "utter paucity" of evidence regarding the threat to kill in that case, though he refrained from granting the petition on procedural grounds. Considering the Solicitor General's comment, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that Criminal Case No. 021430 should be dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
Main Doctrine
A violation or disregard of the Court's circular on how the raffle of cases should be conducted is not to be countenanced, as the raffle of cases is of vital importance to the administration of justice by ensuring impartial adjudication and obviating public suspicion regarding case assignments. Such violation may warrant the setting aside of orders denying motions to re-raffle.