Jeffrey Liang V.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:
Sometime in 1994, petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist of Asian Development
Bank(ADB), was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court(MeTC) of Mandaluyong City
with two counts of oral defamation for allegedly uttering defamatory statements against her
co-worker, Joyce Cabal. The next day, the MeTC judge received an office 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 prosecution
filed a Motion for Reconsideration but such was denied. The decision was however reversed
on Appeal with the Regional Trial Court. Jeffrey then elevated the case to the Supreme
Court via a petition for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement
and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.

ISSUE:
Whether Jeffreys immunity will hold water in the case at hand.

HELD:
No.

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. In consonance with this,
Second, under Section 45(a) of the Agreement which provides that Officers and staff of the
Bank including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions
for the Bank shall enjoy the privilege of immunity from legal process with respect to acts
performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity."

Jeffrey therefore cannot be cloaked with immunity in this case for the reason that our
laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such a slandering a person, in the name of
official duty.