Liang v. People

Liang v.
People
Ynares-Santiago, J. | G.R. No. 125865 | Jan. 28, 2000
Topic: Immunity from Jurisdiction
Nature: Petition for Review
Memory Aid: Immunity must be based on official duty

PARTIES
JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
DISPUTED MATTER
The petitioner contends that he is covered by immunity under an agreement between ADB and the Philippine government.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) , was charged before the MeTC of
Mandaluyong with two counts of grave oral defamation for allegedly uttering defamatory words against a fellow ADB
worker. Liang was arrested but later released. The next day, the judge received an "office of protocol" from the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that Liang is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45
of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government. Based on the said protocol communication, the judge,
without notice to the prosecution, dismissed the two criminal cases. The RTC set aside the MeTC ruling and ordered the
latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. Liang appealed arguing that he is covered by immunity under
the Agreement.

The Supreme Court ruled that the immunity mentioned in the agreement is not absolute, but subject to the exception
that the act was done in "official capacity". Under Section 45 of the Agreement: "Officers and staff of the Bank including for
the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges and
immunities: a.) immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when
the Bank waives the immunity." It is therefore necessary to determine if petitioners case falls within the ambit of Section
45(a). Thus, the prosecution should have been given the chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the
opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so desire.
DOCTRINE
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity
from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial
activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions. As already mentioned above,
the commission of a crime is not part of official duty.

FACTS
Petitioner Jeffrey Liang is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
 For allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation
 Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioner's bail at P2,400.00 per
criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB.

The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating
that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and
the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country.
 Based on the said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the
prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the
DFA.
 When its motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC of Pasig City
which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. [MR was
also denied]

ISSUE/ HELD
W/N the DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity has binding effect in courts - NO
Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any immunity.
Concept: The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding
effect in courts.
 It should be noted that due process is a right of the accused as much as it is of the prosecution. The needed inquiry in
what capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary basis that
has yet to be presented at the proper time.
 At any rate, it has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping
of the charges
 Section 45 of the Agreement provides: Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this Article experts
and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
a.) immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank
waives the immunity.

Application: (Important) The immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts
was done in "official capacity."
 It is therefore necessary to determine if petitioner's case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution
should have been given the chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the opportunity to present its
controverting evidence, should it so desire.
 Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty. The imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot
be part of official functions.
 It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage
he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. It
appears that even the government's chief legal counsel, the Solicitor General, does not support the stand taken by
petitioner and that of the DFA.

Concept: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any professional or commercial activity
exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions. As already mentioned above, the
commission of a crime is not part of official duty.

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Liang v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liang v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liang v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liang v.

You might also like