Facts:

The case at hand, G.R. Nos. 76344-46, revolves around petitioner Ang Kek Chen and respondents, Judge Abundio Bello and the People of the Philippines. It arises from events that began on December 28, 1977, when Ang was charged in the City of Manila’s court with three criminal offenses: Maltreatment (Criminal Case No. 021429), Threats (Criminal Case No. 021430), and Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. 021431). The charges stemmed from incidents occurring between December 25 and December 26, 1977, where Ang allegedly assaulted and threatened two individuals associated with him.

After the prosecution presented its evidence, Ang filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was denied. Ang escalated the situation by filing a certiorari and prohibition with a request for preliminary injunction to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which also denied the relief sought in its order dated November 18, 1983. This order was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

As a result of a ju

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner Ang Kek Chen was charged on December 28, 1977, before the then Manila City Court (now Metropolitan Trial Court), Branch VIII, with three criminal offenses:
• Criminal Case No. 021429 – Maltreatment
• Criminal Case No. 021430 – Threats
• Criminal Case No. 021431 – Slight Physical Injuries
• Specific allegations in each case were:
• Maltreatment (Case 021429): Alleged that on or about December 26, 1977, Ang struck and slapped Le He Co Yu De Ang, delivering multiple blows without causing physical injury.
• Threats (Case 021430): Alleged that on or about December 25, 1977, Ang, in the heat of anger, threatened to kill Le He Co Yu De Ang, though he later abandoned the threat.
• Slight Physical Injuries (Case 021431): Alleged that on or about December 26, 1977, Ang physically assaulted Lucrecia Ang y Go by slapping and beating her, causing injuries that necessitated medical attention and incapacitated her for a short period.

Procedural History

• After the prosecution presented its evidence, Ang filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was denied by the trial court.
• Ang elevated the issue by filing a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders; this petition was denied (Order dated November 18, 1983).
• The Court of Appeals later affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s order in toto.
• Subsequent administrative changes—specifically, the promotion of the presiding judge of MTC Branch VIII to the Regional Trial Court—resulted in the assignment of an acting officer-in-charge who directed the return of case records to the Clerk of Court for a “re-raffle.”

The Raffle Process and Alleged Irregularities

• The case records were ordered for “re-raffle” to reassign the cases among branches.
• Petitioner contended that he received the raffle order on August 23, 1984, which was after the cases had already been re-assigned on August 16, 1984, thereby alleging that the process was compromised.
• On September 27, 1984, Ang filed a motion to re-raffle the cases; this motion and its subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied.

Contentions and Challenges Raised by the Petitioner

• Ang charged that respondent Judge Abundio Bello committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to an excess of jurisdiction by violating Administrative Circular No. 7 during the raffle, thereby compromising the integrity and impartiality of case assignments.
• In his petition, Ang also prayed for the outright dismissal of the three criminal cases on the ground that such procedural irregularities undermined his right to be heard by an unbiased tribunal.

Public and Governmental Involvement

• On November 17, 1986, the Court required public respondents to file comments on the petition.
• The Solicitor General, in an urgent manifestation and motion dated January 26, 1987, and subsequently in a comment on June 23, 1987, argued that:
• The alleged non-compliance with the raffle procedure was a trivial administrative lapse that did not affect the substantive rights of the accused, except where evidence was lacking.
• In Criminal Case No. 021430, the record showed an utter paucity of evidence regarding the threat to kill, warranting its dismissal.
• For Criminal Cases 021429 and 021431, however, the evidence was sufficient to uphold the prosecution’s cause, making dismissal premature at that stage.

Issue:

Issue on the Raffle Procedure

• Whether respondent Judge Abundio Bello committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to an excess of jurisdiction by disregarding Administrative Circular No. 7 in conducting the raffle of criminal cases.
• Whether the allegedly untimely issuance of the raffle order (received by petitioner on August 23, 1984, after the actual re-assignment on August 16, 1984) undermined the impartiality required in judicial case assignment.

Issue on the Dismissal of Criminal Case No. 021430

• Whether the insufficiency of evidence regarding the charge of “Light Threats” in Criminal Case No. 021430 justifies its outright dismissal under the court’s equity jurisdiction.
• How the administrative irregularity in the raffle process weighed against the substantive rights of the accused to a fair judicial process.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)