Pollo vs. Constantino CASE DIGEST ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

 

Pollo vs. Constantino, G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

P: Villarama, J.

 

FACTS: Pollo is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the "Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na" program of the CSC. An unsigned letter-complaint was sent to CSC Chairperson Constantino-David stating that the chief of the Mamamayan muna hindi mamaya na is supposedly "lawyering" for individuals with pending cases in the CSC.

Chairperson issued a memo to conduct an investigation and specifically to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions. It was found that most of the files from the computer assigned to and being used by the Pollo were draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. Pollo denied. He asserted that he had protested the unlawful taking of his computer done while he was on leave. In view of the illegal search, the files/documents copied from his computer without his consent is thus inadmissible as evidence, being "fruits of a poisonous tree."

CSC found Pollo guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and dismissed from service. CA held that the ordering the back-up of files in the computer and later confiscating the same is under the CSC computer policy declaring the computers as government property and that employee-users thereof have no reasonable expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send, or receive on the computer system.

ISSUE: Whether or not the files/documents copied from Pollo’s computer without his consent is inadmissible as evidence

HELD: No. The evidence derived from the questioned search are deemed admissible. The search of Pollo’s computer was justified there being reasonable ground for suspecting that the files stored therein would yield incriminating evidence relevant to the investigation being conducted by CSC as government employer of such misconduct subject of the anonymous complaint. Petitioner failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files. Moreover, in the absence of allegation or proof of the aforementioned factual circumstances, that petitioner had at least a subjective expectation of privacy in his computer as he claims, such is negated by the presence of policy regulating the use of office computers.

The CSC had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office computers, and that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer resources using both automated or human means. This implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that the computer resources were used only for such legitimate business purposes.

The warrantless search done on computer assigned to Pollo was not vitiated with unconstitutionality. It was a reasonable exercise of the managerial prerogative of the Commission as an employer aimed at ensuring its operational effectiveness and efficiency by going after the work-related misfeasance of its employees.