Case Summary (G.R. No. 207926)
Petitioner and Respondent Positions
Petitioner (OMB) conducted administrative proceedings and issued a Joint Decision finding Mislang, Durwin, and Baharin guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposing dismissal from the service; it dismissed charges against Valera. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), asserting among other defenses that he was previously acquitted by a General Court Martial; the CA reversed the Ombudsman decision on res judicata grounds. The Ombudsman brought the matter to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Key Dates and Procedural History
Relevant chronology as presented: alleged Sinumpaang Salaysay by Barcelona and Rosqueta dated December 17, 2004; complaint-affidavits filed before OMB in March–April 2005; respondent allegedly arraigned and found “Not Guilty” by a General Court Martial Order dated February 7, 2007; Ombudsman Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011 finding Mislang guilty; execution order for dismissal issued same date; respondent filed a petition in the CA under Rule 43, and the CA issued a decision on October 15, 2012 reversing the Ombudsman for res judicata, with a denial of reconsideration on June 7, 2013; the Supreme Court resolved the Petition for Review on Certiorari and denied the petition.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The decision applies the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the governing constitutional framework (decision date is 2018). The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction derives from R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) and the case also involved the Articles of War (notably Articles 96 and 97) as the General Court Martial exercised court-martial jurisdiction. The January 28, 2004 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Ombudsman concerning coordination and delineation of disciplinary authority is central to the jurisdictional analysis.
Factual Allegations Before the Ombudsman
Complainants alleged that Mislang gave Barcelona and Rosqueta firearms, ordered them to surveil and assassinate Mayor Luna (including her sons), and provided seed money; the assassination was allegedly planned for a birthday party but did not occur. After the plot failed, Barcelona and Rosqueta reportedly were placed AWOL and then allegedly targeted for assassination; on the way to a party, Durwin and Baharin allegedly shot Rosqueta dead and wounded Barcelona. The Ombudsman’s Joint Decision relied primarily on the affidavits/complaint-affidavits of Barcelona and Rosqueta to find Mislang and the agents guilty of Grave Misconduct.
Ombudsman’s Proceedings and Decision
Ombudsman conducted administrative adjudication and, on May 9, 2011, issued a Joint Decision finding Mislang, Durwin, and Baharin guilty of Grave Misconduct and meting the penalty of dismissal. The Ombudsman found insufficient evidence against Valera and dismissed charges as to him. An order for execution of Mislang’s dismissal was issued the same date. The record also shows contentions by respondent that he was not furnished copies of the complaint-affidavits and therefore had not filed counter-affidavits.
Court of Appeals’ Rationale
The CA reversed the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision on res judicata grounds, holding that the General Court Martial of the Philippine Army had earlier adjudicated the same allegations and had found Mislang “Not Guilty” in an Order dated February 7, 2007. The CA applied the rule res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet to the effect that extrajudicial confessions or admissions of co-conspirators (here, the self-confessed hired killers) require corroboration by independent evidence; the CA found no independent corroborative evidence of conspiracy aside from the affidavits relied upon by the Ombudsman. The CA also relied on the MOA to conclude that the General Court Martial had cognizance and that the Ombudsman was precluded from acting further when the AFP had earlier acquired jurisdiction.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Primary issues taken up by the Supreme Court were: (1) whether the CA correctly set aside the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision; (2) whether res judicata or the General Court Martial’s prior “Not Guilty” finding precluded the Ombudsman from proceeding; (3) whether the Ombudsman’s findings were supported by substantial evidence; and (4) whether procedural defects (failure to furnish complaints, exhaustion of remedies, attachment of decision to the CA petition) precluded review.
Procedural Objections and Exhaustion of Remedies
The Supreme Court rejected the Ombudsman’s contention that the CA petition should have been dismissed outright for procedural defects. The Court found no conclusive basis to infer that the CA lacked the Ombudsman decision or that the petition was fatally defective for lack of attachment. On exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court reiterated that the doctrine is not absolute and that exceptions apply (e.g., alleged due process violations or pure legal questions). Given respondent’s assertions that he was not furnished copies of complaints and the legal question about the effect of the General Court Martial acquittal, the Court found sufficient grounds to dispense with a prior motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman.
Jurisdiction: Concurrence, MOA, and First-to-Act Rule
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Ombudsman and the General Court Martial have concurrent jurisdiction over service-connected administrative disciplinary matters involving military personnel (including violations under the Articles of War). The Court emphasized the sui generis nature of military justice—having both criminal and administrative disciplinary characteristics—and cited prior authorities noting the service-connected and disciplinary aspects of Articles of War offenses (e.g., Article 96). The Court explained that in instances of concurrent jurisdiction, the body that first takes cognizance of the case and opts to exercise jurisdiction acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other tribunal. The MOA of January 28, 2004 was read as recognizing the Ombudsman’s primary jurisdiction while providing for coordination and endorsing non-graft cases to the AFP for efficiency; it did not abrogate the Ombudsman’s statutory jurisdiction. The Court found, on the record, that the AFP had first acquired jurisdiction (investigations, affidavits, and the General Court Martial proceedings preceding the Ombudsman adjudication) and that the Ombudsman was apprised of that fact by counsel’s letter dated June 16, 2009. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded the General Court Martial’s exercise of jurisdiction precluded further action by the Ombudsman in this instance.
Res judicata, Res inter alios Acta, and Corroboration of Extrajudicial Confessions
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s application of the rule res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet: statements or confessions of co-conspirators may be adm
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 207926)
Title, Citation, and Forum
- Full style as reflected in the source: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, V. COL. NOEL P. MISLANG, RESPONDENT.
- Reported at 842 Phil. 12, First Division; G.R. No. 207926; Decision dated October 15, 2018.
- Decision authored by Justice Tijam for the Supreme Court First Division.
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) October 15, 2012 Decision and June 7, 2013 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 120603.
- The CA had reversed and set aside the Office of the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011 (OMB-L-A-05-0201-C; OMB-L-A-05-0202-C; OMB-L-A-05-0309-D) that found Col. Noel P. Mislang guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service.
- The Ombudsman (petitioner) sought reinstatement of its May 9, 2011 Joint Decision and enforcement of its findings and penalty.
Parties and Roles
- Petitioner: Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), acting through its Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Office (MOLEO) and related offices.
- Respondent: Col. Noel P. Mislang, then Commanding Officer, 41st Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army.
- Co-accused in petitioner’s Joint Decision: Mauro Durwin and Florencio Baharin (agents of the Military Intelligence Group).
- Other individuals implicated in the underlying factual allegations: Vicente P. Valera (then Governor of Abra; charges against him were dismissed by the Ombudsman), Cecilia S. Luna (complainant, former Mayor of Lagayan, Abra), Corporal Eduardo Barcelona and Corporal Antonio R. Rosqueta (complainants; Rosqueta was mortally wounded), Elena V. Rosqueta (complainant).
Antecedent Facts — Overview of Allegations
- Complaints and complaint-affidavits before the Ombudsman arose from alleged conspiracy to assassinate Mayor Cecilia S. Luna and family, and the shooting of Corporals Barcelona and Rosqueta.
- Complaint-affidavits: Cecilia S. Luna (dated March 8, 2005); Corporal Eduardo Barcelona (dated March 11, 2005); Elena V. Rosqueta (dated April 13, 2005).
- Barcelona’s allegations included: regular reporting to respondent for official and unofficial instructions; receipt of a .45 caliber pistol from respondent in April 2004; direction to tail and assassinate Mayor Luna; provision of seed money; meetings with respondent’s alleged assets Durwin and Baharin.
- Additional factual allegations: June 2004—respondent allegedly ordered inclusion of Luna’s sons Ryan and Jendrick in the assassination plot; July 2004—respondent allegedly brought Barcelona, Rosqueta, and Corporal John Pablo to the assassination site; the plan allegedly aborted due to absence of intended victims; Barcelona and Rosqueta placed on AWOL in December 2004 and later allegedly targeted for assassination by respondent.
- December 17, 2004: Sinumpaang Salaysay of Rosqueta and Barcelona executed at Philippine Army Headquarters (records reflect earlier AFP activity preceding some Ombudsman filings).
- On the way to a party in Isabela Province, Durwin and Baharin allegedly shot Rosqueta to death and seriously wounded Barcelona, who survived.
- Respondent did not submit counter-affidavit within the Ombudsman preliminary investigation to refute the charges, and also lodged repeated manifestations claiming he was not furnished copies of complaints and was not made a party to the proceedings.
Military Proceedings and General Court Martial (GCM)
- The records indicate that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) undertook investigation activities: respondent was reassigned pending investigation as early as January 13, 2005; Lt. Col. Remy R. Maglaya submitted an Investigation Report to the Army Inspector General on January 31, 2005.
- The General Court Martial of the Philippine Army (military court) took cognizance of complaints, arraigned respondent, heard the cases, and rendered an Order dated February 7, 2007 declaring respondent "Not Guilty" of the charges proffered in military specifications.
- Military charges as set out in the AFP specifications included:
- CHARGE I: Violation of the 96th Article of War (Conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman) — Specification I alleging an order to assassinate Mayor Cecil Luna and her family (sometime in April 2004).
- CHARGE II: Violation of the 97th Article of War (Neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline) — Specification I alleging failure to promptly institute disciplinary actions for June to November 2004 against erring personnel known to be involved in illegal activities.
- Respondent’s former counsel notified the Ombudsman by letter dated June 16, 2009 that the GCM had rendered an Order on February 7, 2007 declaring respondent “Not Guilty.”
Ombudsman Proceedings, Joint Decision, and Penalty
- The Ombudsman conducted preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication in OMB-L-A-05-0201-C, OMB-L-A-05-0202-C, OMB-L-A-05-0309-D.
- On May 9, 2011, the Ombudsman issued its Joint Decision with the following dispositive portions:
- Dismissed the charges for Grave Misconduct against Vicente P. Valera.
- Found respondents Colonel Noel Mislang, Mauro Durwin, and Florencio Baharin guilty of Grave Misconduct and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service.
- Directed the Commanding General, Philippine Army, or his duly authorized representative to immediately implement this Decision.
- On the same date the Ombudsman issued an Order for the execution of respondent Mislang’s dismissal from the service.
- Petitioner (Ombudsman) deemed the evidence substantial enough to hold Mislang, Durwin, and Baharin administratively liable despite dismissing Valera for insufficient evidence.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals — Procedural Posture and CA Decision
- Respondent appealed the Ombudsman Joint Decision to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 without first filing a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman.
- Neither the Ombudsman nor the complainants filed comments on respondent’s petition before the CA.
- The CA took into account respondent’s assertions that he did not receive copies of the complaint-affidavits nor any order to file counter-affidavits, and it noted the manifestations and motions filed by respondent before the Ombudsman seeking copies or dismissal for violation of due process and right to speedy disposition.
- The CA observed the GCM Order of February 7, 2007 finding respondent not guilty and relied on the doctrine encapsulated by the Latin maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet (things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them) as enunciated in Black’s Law Dictionary.
- The CA found no independent or extraneous evidence corroborating the alleged conspiracy beyond the affidavits of the self-confessed hired killers (Barcelona and Rosqueta).
- Citing the January 28, 2004 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between AFP and the Ombudsman delineating lines of disciplinary authority, the CA concluded that the GCM’s acquittal had preclusive effect (res judicata) and that the Ombudsman was precluded from acting further on the same complaints. The CA thus reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision by its October 15, 2012 Decision and denied reconsideration in its June 7, 2013 Resolution.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Primary issue: Did the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the Office of the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision dated May 9, 2011?
- Subsidiary/focused questions raised by the Ombudsman:
- Whether res judicata and the GCM’s prior Order of acquittal preclude the Ombudsman from adjudicating the administrative cases against respondent.
- Whether the Ombudsman’s findings wer