G.R. No. 139943 - Miralles vs. Go

Complaint and investigation
On October 19, 1977, Patrolman Nilo Resurreccion and Ernesto Merculio were shot; an administrative complaint for grave misconduct (double homicide) was filed against respondent-petitioner Manuel Miralles on December 7, 1977, accusing him of willfully shooting the victims with intent to kill (Annex `4`).
An investigation was conducted by Rogelio A. Ringpis, Hearing Officer No. 3 of NAPOLCOM, Manila, who after hearings submitted an Investigation Report finding Miralles guilty of grave misconduct (double homicide) and recommending dismissal from service with prejudice to reinstatement (Investigation Report, Annex `E`).

Adjudication and administrative remedies within NAPOLCOM
On September 10, 1980, Adjudication Board No. 15 of NAPOLCOM found Miralles guilty and ordered his dismissal from the service with prejudice to reinstatement (Decision, annex `F`).
Petitioner moved for reconsideration on April 20, 1981; motion was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Special Appellate Committee (SAC) of NAPOLCOM on September 23, 1981.
SAC-Napolcom dismissed the appeal for abandonment on June 6, 1983 for failure to file an appeal brief or pleadings; petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration/manifestation (Aug 30, 1983) and later submitted a memorandum (Sept 27, 1983).
SAC-Napolcom rendered a decision on April 26, 1984 affirming the Adjudication Board’s dismissal of petitioner; petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on June 30, 1984 which was denied by resolution dated October 30, 1989.

Evidence and testimonial record at administrative level
Prosecution evidence included documentary exhibits (Exhibits B to O: sworn statements, arrest report, medico-legal and necropsy reports, chemistry and ballistic reports) and eyewitness testimony, notably taxi driver Alejandro Lamsen.
Lamsen testified he saw Miralles, his passenger, pull out a gun and shoot Patrolman Resurreccion three times in the chest; in open court he identified Miralles as the shooter.
Lamsen later purportedly gave a recantation when he appeared as a defense witness, but this portion of his testimony for the defense was struck out because he failed to appear for cross-examination despite due notice; consequently the stricken recantation was not considered.

Parallel criminal proceedings and appellate history
A criminal case for homicide was instituted in the Quezon City RTC and was dismissed (recorded dismissal in the criminal docket), but petitioner contended this criminal dismissal established his innocence.
Petitioner elevated the administrative rulings to SAC-Napolcom which affirmed dismissal; he later sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA), which on May 25, 1999 dismissed his petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 42477).
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court on December 4, 1996 (petition challenging CA decision filed while RA 6975 was already in effect by time of filing), leading to the present decision.

Procedural jurisdiction and proper appellate route
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s direct appeal from the SAC-Napolcom decision given that RA 6975 (the DILG/PNP law) and related Civil Service appeal provisions became effective after the SAC-Napolcom resolution but before petitioner received notice and filed his appeal.

Merits and evidentiary sufficiency, including claimed self-defense
Whether the evidence on record (documentary exhibits and eyewitness testimony) suffices to sustain petitioner’s administrative dismissal for grave misconduct (double homicide).
Whether petitioner established self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, as he claimed.
Whether the dismissal of the parallel criminal case (Quezon City RTC) conclusively establishes petitioner’s innocence and exonerates him administratively.