A.M. No. 15-05-136-RTC, P-16-3450 - IN RE: Rogelio M. Salazar, Jr.

The case involves consolidated administrative matters brought against respondent Rogelio M. Salazar, Jr., Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court – Office of the Clerk of Court in Boac, Marinduque.
The administrative charges stem from actions allegedly committed in connection with violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

On March 7, 2015, pursuant to Search Warrant No. 5043, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) searched the respondent’s property.
During the search, seven plastic sachets containing a total of 9.4993 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) were confiscated, and a confirmatory drug test on the respondent’s urine yielded a positive result.

Criminal Case Nos. 63-15 (for illegal possession under Section 11 in relation to Section 28) and 62-15 (for prohibited use under Section 15 in relation to Section 28) were filed based on the evidence gathered.
A separate case (I.S. No. XV-05-INV-15C-087) was initiated for violations of Sections 5 and 15 but was later dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor.
Documents and evidence from these criminal cases were forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator which, under its motu proprio power, initiated administrative proceedings charging the respondent with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and subsequently the Court found that:

The respondent had admitted to using dangerous drugs during the preliminary investigation—even though he claimed he had ceased such use—as a material piece of testimonial evidence.
A confirmatory drug test independently provided substantial evidence of his drug use.

The OCA relied on Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 13, series of 2010, and the related provisions of the Revised Rules for Administrative Cases in the Civil Service to characterize the use of dangerous drugs as grave misconduct.

The criminal charges (from which the administrative case arose) were dismissed due to the quashing of the search warrant and the suppression of evidence obtained thereby.
Consequently, the evidence – including his admission and confirmatory drug test – should be deemed inadmissible in an administrative context as fruits of a tainted search.

Administrative cases require only “substantial evidence” (a lower threshold than criminal cases).
The admission and the confirmatory test are independent and not automatically rendered inadmissible simply because the search warrant was quashed.

The concurring opinion stressed that high standards of moral integrity must be maintained within the Judiciary.
The dissent emphasized that the exclusionary rule should apply in administrative proceedings, arguing against the admissibility of evidence derived from an illegal search.

Whether the respondent can be held administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, notwithstanding the dismissal of related criminal cases due to an allegedly illegal search.

Does the suppression of evidence (i.e., the drugs seized and derivatively, the confirmatory test) under the exclusionary rule preclude its use in administrative proceedings?
Can testimonial evidence (the respondent’s admission of drug use) be considered independent and admissible in this administrative context?