CRIMPRO Jurisdiction

Title GR No. 181881

POLLO v. DAVID Date: October 18,2011
Ponente: Villarama, Jr., J.
Briccio Ricky Pollo Petitioner Karina Constantino-David Respondent
Nature of the case: In issue that searches must be people, not places.
FACTS
Case timeline for better appreciation:
1. Anonymous letter was sent to respondent alleging anomaly in the office of petitioner. Respondent issued
an investigation and summed up all the back-up files of the petitioner, containing draft pleadings. With that,
respondent issued a Resolution for petitioners violation of RA 6713, compelling him to explain his side, but
petitioner filed a motion assailing the charge against him is without basis which proceeded from an illegal
search beyond respondents authority. Subsequently, petitioner was dismissed.
2. Court of Appeals convicted petitioner in Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Republic Act 6713.
3. Hence, the present petition for review.
ISSUE/S
WON the search conducted by the CSC officials is a violation of Pollos constitutional right to privacy. YES

RATIO
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA, which in turn upheld the CSC resolution
dismissing the petitioner from service. The High Tribunal held that the search on petitioners office computer and the
copying of his personal files were both LAWFUL and DID NOT VIOLATE his constitutional right to privacy.
Article III, sec. 2 states that:
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
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. Petitioner did not allege that he had a separate
enclosed office which he did not share with anyone, or that his office was always locked and not open to other
employees or visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted any means to prevent other
employees from accessing his computer files. Also, the search conducted on petitioners computer was justified at
its inception and scope. The search of petitioners computer files was conducted in connection with investigation
of work-related misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint addressed to Chairperson David
regarding anomalies in the CSC-ROIV where the head of the Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na division is
supposedly lawyering for individuals with pending cases in the CSC. A search by a government employer of an
employees office is justified at inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up
evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated October 11, 2007 and
Resolution dated February 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98224 are AFFIRMED. With
costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

09/08/17 (TLME)