Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty.

Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, MeTC Ma

nila
Facts:

Atty. Morales, Branch Clerk of Court of MeTC, Branch 67, Manila was investigated
on the basis of an anonymous letter alleging that he was consuming his working
hours filing and attending to personal cases, using office supplies, equipment a
nd utilities. The OCA conducted a spot investigation aided by NBI agents. The te
am was able to access Atty. Morales personal computer and print two documents st
ored in its hard drive, which turned out to be two pleadings, one filed in the C
A and another in the RTC of Manila, both in the name of another lawyer. Atty. Mo
rales computer was seized and taken in custody of the OCA but was later ordered
released on his motion, but with order to the MISO to first retrieve the files s
tored therein.

Atty. Morales, in defense, argues that since the pleadings were acquired from hi
s personal computer which was confiscated without any valid search and seizure o
rder, such evidence should be considered as the fruits of a poisonous tree as it
violated his right to privacy.

The OCA disagreed with the report of the Investigating Judge that there was no e
vidence to support the charge against Atty. Morales as no one from the OCC perso
nnel who were interviewed would give a categorical and positive statement affirm
ing the charges against Atty. Morales, along with other court personnel also cha
rged in the same case. The OCA recommended that Atty. Morales should be found gu
ilty of gross misconduct.

Issues:

1. Are the pleadings found in Atty. Morales's personal computer admissible in th

e present administrative case against him?

2. May the right against unreasonable searches and seizures be invoked in an adm
inistrative case?

3. Was there consented warrantless search in this case?

4. Is there a ground to hold Atty. Morales liable of the charge?

Held:

1. While Atty. Morales may have fallen short of the exacting standards required
of every court employee, the Court cannot use the evidence obtained from his per
sonal computer against him for it violated his constitutional right against unre
asonable searches and seizures.

2. As expounded in Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, any violation of the aforestated

constitutional right renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.

3. Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred and must be shown by clear

and convincing evidence. It must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise
illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligentl
y given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The burden of proving, by
clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that i
t was freely and voluntarily given lies with the State. Acquiescence in the loss
of fundamental rights is not to be presumed and courts indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. To constitute
a valid consent or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive sear
ches, it must be shown that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person involved h
ad knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and
(3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.

In this case, what is missing is a showing that Atty. Morales had an actual inte
ntion to relinquish his right. While he may have agreed to the opening of his pe
rsonal computer and the printing of files therefrom during the spot investigatio
n, it is also of record that Atty. Morales immediately filed an administrative c
ase against said persons questioning the validity of the investigation, specific
ally invoking his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

4. And as there is no other evidence, apart from the pleadings, retrieved from t
he unduly confiscated personal computer of Atty. Morales, to hold him administra
tively liable, the Court had no choice but to dismiss the charges against him fo
r insufficiency of evidence.