A.M. No. 15-05-136-RTC, December 4, 2018
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Rogelio M. Salazar, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Boac, Marinduque, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from the arrest of Sheriff Rogelio Salazar, Jr. for alleged violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165). Following surveillance and test-buys, a search warrant was issued by a Quezon City Executive Judge for Salazar’s beach house in Marinduque. In a subsequent buy-bust operation targeting another individual, Raymond Mistal, Mistal allegedly informed agents of a scheduled transaction with Salazar. This led agents to Salazar’s house, where he allegedly directed them to a third party, Melvin Lubrin, from whom shabu was recovered. The agents then served the search warrant at Salazar’s beach house, finding seven sachets of shabu. Salazar’s urine test also yielded a positive result for methamphetamine use.
The criminal charges for sale and possession of dangerous drugs against Salazar were dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor for lack of probable cause, citing inconsistencies in the arresting officers’ statements. However, an Information for possession and use of drugs was later filed and pending before the trial court. Based on this pending criminal case, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended Salazar’s preventive suspension for grave misconduct, which the Court en banc granted.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative case against Sheriff Salazar should be dismissed based on the alleged illegality of the search and seizure that produced the evidence against him.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen voted to dismiss the administrative case and revoke Salazar’s suspension. The ponencia had ruled that the exclusionary rule, which renders evidence obtained from an unlawful search inadmissible in a criminal trial, does not apply in administrative proceedings where the quantum of proof is substantial evidence. Justice Leonen, however, argued that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is absolute. He invoked the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, asserting that if the primary source (the “tree”) is unlawfully obtained, any secondary evidence (the “fruit”) is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, including administrative cases.
The dissent emphasized that the search warrant was issued by a Quezon City judge despite the place to be searched being in Marinduque, raising serious jurisdictional questions about its validity. Since the shabu allegedly found in Salazar’s possession was seized by virtue of this potentially invalid warrant, the evidence is tainted and should be excluded. Furthermore, Justice Leonen noted that the criminal charges for the more serious offenses of sale and possession had already been dismissed by the prosecutor for lack of evidence. He concluded that without the illegally seized evidence, there was no substantial evidence to support the administrative charge of grave misconduct. Therefore, the suspension was unjustified, and Salazar should be reinstated with back wages.