Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 76344-46 June 30, 1988
ANG KEK CEN, petitioner,
vs.
TE ON. A!UN"#O !E$$O, %s Ju&'e o( )*e Me)+o,o-.)%n T+.%- Cou+) o( M%n.-%, %n& )*e
PEOP$E O/ TE P#$#PP#NES, respondents.
Eriberto D. Ignacio for petitioner.

0AP, C.J.:
Petitioner uestions the alle!ed !rave abuse of discretion a"ountin! to e#cess of $urisdiction
co""itted b% respondent &ud!e 'bundio (ello in violatin! 'd"inistrative Circular No. ), dated
Septe"ber *+, ,-)., re!ardin! the raffle of Cri"inal Cases Nos. /*,.*-, /*,.+/ and /*,.+,,
and pra%s that the Court orders the outri!ht dis"issal of the cases.
It appears fro" the records that on Dece"ber *0, ,-)), petitioner 'n! 1as char!ed before the
then Manila Cit% Court 2no1 Metropolitan 3rial Court4, (ranch VIII, 1ith the cri"es of
5M'63RE'3MEN3,5 537RE'3S,5 and 5S6I873 P79SIC'6 IN&:RIES,5 co""itted accordin! to
the infor"ation as follo1s;
Cri"inal Case No. /*,.*- 2Maltreat"ent4
3hat on or about Dece"ber *<, ,-)), in the Cit% of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there 1ilfull%, unla1full% and feloniousl% ill=treat b% deed
one, 6E 7E CO 9 9: DE 'N8 b% then and there, slappin! her and !ivin! her
fist>blo1s on her head several ti"es, 1ithout, ho1ever, inflictin! upon said 6E 7E
CO 9 9: DE 'N8 an% ph%sical in$ur%.
Cri"inal Case No. /*,.+/ 23hreats4
3hat on or about Dece"ber *?, ,-)), in the Cit% of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused in the heat of an!er, did then and there 1ilfull%, unla1full% and
feloniousl% threaten to co""it a 1ron! and inflict bodil% har" upon the person of
6e 7e Co % 9u De 'n! b% then and there threatenin! to @ill her but, accused,
ho1ever, b% subseuent acts, did not persist in the Idea conceived in his threats.
Cri"inal Case No. /*,.+, 2Sli!ht Ph%sical In$uries4
3hat on or about Dece"ber *<, ,-)), in the Cit% of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there 1illfull%, unla1full% and feloniousl% attac@, assault and
use personal violence upon the person of one 6:CRECI' 'N8 9 8O b% then
and there slappin! her on the face and b% beatin! her thereb% inflictin! upon the
said 6:CRECI' 'N8 9 8O ph%sical in$uries 1hich have reuired and 1ill reuire
"edical attendance for a period of "ore than one but not "ore than - da%s and
incapacitated and 1ill incapacitate the said 6ucrecia 'n! % 8o fro" perfor"in!
her custo"ar% labor durin! the said period of ti"e.
'fter the prosecution had presented its evidence, 'n! filed a De"urrer to Evidence 1hich 1as
denied b% the respondent court. 'n! elevated the incident to the Re!ional 3rial Court of Manila
on certiorari and prohibition 1ith pra%er for preli"inar% in$unction and>or te"porar% restrainin!
orders. 3he petition 1as li@e1ise denied 2Order dated Nove"ber ,0,,-0+4. On appeal, the
Court of 'ppeals affir"ed in toto the Re!ional 3rial CourtAs Order.
Mean1hile, the then presidin! $ud!e of M3C (ranch VIII 21here the rases 1ere pendin!4 1as
pro"oted to the Re!ional 3rial Court of Manila. 's a conseuence, respondent $ud!e, as officer=
in=char!e of the M3C 2Manila4, directed the return of the case records to the Cler@ of Court for
5re=raffle.5 Petitioner, ho1ever, alle!ed that he received the correspondin! order onl% on 'u!ust
*+, ,-0., or 'B3ER the cases had alread% been actuall% 5re=raffled5 and assi!ned to
respondent $ud!e on 'u!ust ,<, ,-0..
On Septe"ber *), ,-0., 'n! filed a "otion to re=raffle the cases, 1hich 1as denied. 3he
subseuent "otion for reconsideration 1as li@e1ise denied.
1
7ence, the present petition,
alle!in! that;
,. Respondent $ud!e co""itted !rave abuse of discretion a"ountin! to e#cess
of $urisdiction in the "anner he conducted the raffle of Cri"inal Cases Nos.
/*,.*-,/*,.+/ and /*,.+, 'nne#es A'A, A(A and ACA hereof in !ross violation of
Circular No. ) of this 7on. Court in his capacit% as 'ctin! E#ecutive &ud!e of the
Metropolitan 3rial Court of Manila resultin! in the assi!n"ent to the branch
presided b% hi"self of the aforesaid three 2+4 cri"inal cases and in den%in!
pere"ptoril% the "otion for reconsideration filed b% petitioner contestin! the
"anner of said raffle.
*. 3his 7on. Court in the e#ercise of its rule "a@in! po1er and supervision over
all lo1er courts as de"onstrated in several cases decided b% it since its
reconstitution under the present ad"inistration in havin! displa%ed $udicial
state"anship and activis" and in the e#ercise of its euit% $urisdiction "a% order
the outri!ht dis"issal of the said three 2+4 Cri"inal Cases Nos. /*,.*-, /*,.+/
and /*,.+, 'nne#es 5'5, 5(5 and 5C5 of this petition.5
On Nove"ber ,), ,-0<, the Court reuired the public respondents to co""ent on the petition.
On &anuar% *<, ,-0), the Solicitor 8eneral, in an :r!ent Manifestation and Motion, pra%ed that
the entire records of the case be ordered trans"itted fro" (ranch CIII, Metropolitan Court of
Manila, to the Solicitor 8eneralAs Office, so that a co""ent "a% be prepared.
In the Co""ent dated &une *+, ,-0), the Solicitor 8eneral stated that the issue of the alle!ed
non=co"pliance 1ith the CourtAs circular re!ardin! the raffle of cases 1as trivial, that the CourtAs
!uidelines on the "atter did not vest an% substantive ri!ht and a violation thereof did not per
se infrin!e an% constitutional ri!ht of the accused, and that the rafflin! of cases did not involve
an e#ercise of $udicial function, but 1as a "ere ad"inistrative "atter involvin! the distribution of
cases a"on! the different branches of the court, 1hich could not be the sub$ect "atter of a
special civil action for certiorari. 3he Solicitor 8eneral, ho1ever, stated in his co""ent that in
Cri"inal Case No. /*,.+/, for 6i!ht 3hreats, a revie1 of the records sho1ed no evidence on
the alle!ed threat to @ill, hence it should be dis"issed. 's re!ards Cri"inal Case /*,.*-
2Maltreat"ent4 and /*,.+, 2Sli!ht Ph%sical In$uries4 the Solicitor 8eneral opined that it 1as
pre"ature to deter"ine petitionerAs !uilt or innocence, for unless rebutted, evidence on record
appeared sufficient to establish the prosecutionAs cause.
3he principal issue of alle!ed !rave abuse of discretion in violation of Circular No. ) of this
Court, re!ardin! the "anner of raffle of cases, not denied or e#plained b% public respondent, is
not a trivial one. 3he raffle of cases is of vital i"portance to the ad"inistration of $ustice because
it is intended to insure i"partial ad$udication of cases. (% rafflin! the cases public suspicion
re!ardin! assi!n"ent of cases to predeter"ined $ud!es is obviated.
' violation or disre!ard of the CourtAs circular on ho1 the raffle of cases should be conducted is
not to be countenanced. ' part% has the ri!ht to be heard b% an i"partial and unbiased tribunal.
Dhen the respondent $ud!e conducted the raffle of the three cri"inal cases in uestion,
apparentl% in violation of the CourtAs Circular No. ), he did not onl% arouse the suspicion that he
had so"e ulterior "otive for doin! so, but he violated the cardinal rule that all $udicial processes
"ust be done above board. De consider the procedure of rafflin! cases to be an i"portant
ele"ent of $udicial proceedin!s, desi!ned precisel% to !ive assurance to the parties that the
court hearin! their case 1ould be i"partial. On this point, 1e found the petition "eritorious.
Re!ardin! the other pra%er of petitioner for the outri!ht dis"issal of the cases invo@in! the
euit% $urisdiction of this Court, 1e are inclined to adopt the vie1 of the Solicitor 8eneral that
Cri"inal Case No. /*,.+/ 2for 6i!ht 3hreats4 should be dis"issed for lac@ of evidence. Even
7on. Manuel 3. Re%es 2later to beco"e &ustice of the Court of 'ppeals4, before 1ho" as a
Re!ional 3rial &ud!e the case 1as brou!ht on certiorari, 1as of the opinion that there 1as 5utter
paucit%5 of evidence 1ith respect to the char!e of threats in Cri"inal Case No. /*,.+/ to put to
5serious doubt the le!al co!enc% of the disputed orders of 'pril *, and &ul% */, ,-0+E5 ho1ever,
on procedural !rounds he refrained fro" !rantin! the petition. Considerin! the co""ent of the
Solicitor 8eneral 1e find "erit in petitionerAs contention that Cri"inal Case No. /*,.+/ should
be dis"issed.
'ccordin!l%, the order of the respondent court den%in! petitionerAs "otion to re=raffle the
cri"inal cases in uestion, e#cept Cri"inal Case No. /*,.+/ for threat 1hich is hereb%
DISMISSED, is set aside and the said cases Cri"inal Cases No. /*,.*- and /*,.+, are
re"anded to the E#ecutive &ud!e for re=raffle in accordance 1ith this CourtAs Circular No. ).
SO ORDERED.