A.M. No. P-10-2788 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Lopez

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initiated an administrative complaint against Claudio M. Lopez, Process Server of the Municipal Trial Court of Sudipen, La Union.
The complaint alleged violations of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Dangerous Drugs Act), specifically for unlawfully keeping and possessing 790.6 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops without the necessary permit or authority.

An Information dated January 12, 2004, charged respondent with violating RA 9165 by possessing the controlled substance on or about October 21, 2003, within Sudipen, La Union.
Respondent contended in his one-page answer/comment that the associated criminal case (Criminal Case No. 3064) had evidentiary deficiencies, noting that the prosecution failed to prove its case. He argued that issues such as improper territorial jurisdiction of the search warrant and violations of Rule 126 regarding witness presence should preclude admissibility of the evidence seized.

Following the OCA’s recommendation made in its Report dated February 17, 2009, the Court issued a resolution on March 18, 2009, accepting the complaint and directing respondent to comment.
On April 29, 2009, respondent submitted his comment, appealing to the pending criminal case as evidence of the shortcomings in the prosecution’s case.
The matter was referred to an investigating judge, Judge Ferdinand A. Fe of RTC Branch 34, who was tasked to conduct an investigation and submit a report on the administrative complaint.

The investigation noted that police officers, acting on a search warrant issued by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bannayoyo-Lidlidda-San Emilio, Ilocos Sur, conducted a search at the boarding house rented by respondent.
The search uncovered one block of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 790.6 grams, which was found under respondent’s bed after being presented to the live-in partner and certified by local officials.
Respondent denied ownership of the seized items and attempted to rely on his demurrer to evidence filed in the criminal case for his defense in the administrative proceeding.
The investigating judge determined that matters pertaining to the legality of the search warrant and procedural issues under Rule 126 were more appropriate for resolution in the criminal case rather than affecting the administrative inquiry.

Based on the evidence adduced, the investigating judge concluded that respondent had unlawfully possessed the controlled substance without the required governmental permit.
This act was deemed a flagrant violation of the law, constituting grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a government employee.
The finding was supported by the admission of respondent in his demurrer to evidence and the corroborative signatures of local officials who certified the search.
The OCA concurred with the findings, recommending the dismissal of respondent from service with forfeiture of all benefits—except accrued leave benefits—and disqualification from any future government employment.

Whether the dismissal of the criminal case against the respondent could serve as a ground for dismissing the administrative complaint.
What the requisite quantum of proof is in an administrative case compared to the proof required for a criminal case.
Whether evidence that would be insufficient for a criminal conviction, being only substantial rather than beyond reasonable doubt, can nevertheless justify an administrative finding of grave misconduct.