Office of the Court Administrator vs Sumilang A.M. No. MTJ-94-989.

April 18, 1997 Facts: An on the spot audit examination was conducted by the Fiscal Audit Division of the Office of the Court Administrator, several anomalous transaction were discovered during the time of court interpreter Malla, who was then resigned when the audit was done. It involved a managers check in connection with a civil case amounting to P240, 000 which was entrusted to Malla instead of being handed over to the Clerk of Court. Upon further questioning, Malla admitted that she lent the amount of P87, 000, P40, 000 and P81, 000 to steno-reporter Lagmay, steno-reporter Mercado and Mrs. Sumilang respectively, and the remaining balance she used for her husbands hospitalization and for personal purposes. Later on, she executed an affidavit stating that only Lagmay and Mercado borrowed P55, 000 and P 40, 000 respectively. On the other hand, she used P100, 000 for her personal needs. Judge Sumilang, Malla, Lagmay and Mercado, court employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court were charged in a report by the Office of the Court Administrator for misappropriating funds. The Supreme Court issued a resolution treating the memorandum as an administrative complaint. Issue: Whether Mallas constitutional rights were violated when she signed an affidavit before the Office of the Court Administrator, where she admitted her misdeed. Held: No. The constitutional provision under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution may be invoked only during custodial investigation. Such investigation is defined as an investigation conducted by police authorities who will include investigation conducted by the Municipal Police (now PNP) and the NBI and such other police agencies. Thus, the Office of the Court Administrator can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement authority contemplated in the constitutional provision. During the investigation, Malla repeated what she basically stated in her affidavit i,e. that she used a substantial amount for her personal needs. This effectively refutes whatever pressure and coercion she claims was employed against her.