G.R. No. 207926 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mislang

The petitioner is the Office of the Ombudsman, which initiated administrative proceedings for Grave Misconduct against several military personnel.
The respondent, Col. Noel P. Mislang, along with other agents (Mauro Durwin and Florencio Baharin), was charged in connection with a plot to assassinate Mayor Cecilia S. Luna and her family, and in relation to the shooting incident involving military personnel.

The complaint-affidavits (from Cecilia S. Luna, Corporal Eduardo Barcelona, and Elena V. Rosqueta) alleged that respondent Mislang, in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the 41st Infantry Battalion, unlawfully issued orders to tail and assassinate Mayor Luna.
It was further alleged that Mislang provided the operatives with a .45 caliber pistol, seed money, and arranged additional participants in the plot, including the inclusion of Luna’s sons, during a planned birthday party, which ultimately failed due to the absence of key figures.
Subsequent actions included placing the operatives on Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and an alleged order to assassinate the complainants themselves, resulting in the death of Corporal Antonio Rosqueta and serious injury to Corporal Eduardo Barcelona.

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted its investigation and on May 9, 2011, issued a Joint Decision dismissing charges against Vicente P. Valera while finding Col. Mislang, along with Durwin and Baharin, guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordering their dismissal from service.
An Order for the execution of Mislang’s dismissal was issued immediately on the same date.
Prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation, a General Court Martial convened at the Philippine Army Headquarters and on February 7, 2007, had already rendered an Order declaring respondent “Not Guilty” regarding the same acts.

Instead of moving for reconsideration on the petitioner’s Joint Decision, respondent Mislang filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s decision on grounds including res judicata, noting that the General Court Martial had previously adjudicated the identical matters on the same evidence.
The CA’s findings emphasized that the evidence relied upon by the Ombudsman (primarily affidavits of the complainants and alleged conspirators) was uncorroborated by independent evidence.
The CA also explored alleged procedural deficiencies, including respondent’s non-receipt of complaint-affidavits, which affected his ability to present a counter-statement.

Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly set aside the Office of the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011 based on the principle of res judicata.

Focus on whether the earlier General Court Martial decision (“Not Guilty”) precluded further administrative proceedings on the same matter.
Consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence – particularly the affidavits – relied upon by the petitioner in its Joint Decision.

The appropriateness of dismissing respondent’s appeal on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Whether due process was violated by not furnishing respondent copies of the complaints, thereby denying him the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits or a position paper.
The contention that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an absolute requirement, especially when legal issues and due process concerns are at stake.

The proper delineation of jurisdiction between the Office of the Ombudsman and the General Court Martial under the concurrent authority provided by the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated January 28, 2004.

Whether the MOA granted exclusive jurisdiction to the military tribunal for non-graft, service-connected cases.
The implications of concurrent jurisdiction and the rule that the first tribunal to exercise jurisdiction excludes other concurrently authorized bodies.