LIANG v.

PEOPLE
28 Jan 2000 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | Petition for review | Conejero

PETITIONER: Jeffrey Liang (Huafeng)

RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines
SUMMARY: Liang accused his co-worker of theft and was charged with two counts of slander. The DFA sent an “office of protocol”
communication saying that Liang was covered by immunity under the Headquarters Agreement between the ADB and the PH
government. The MeTC judge dismissed the two charges, but the RTC reversed the MeTC and ordered Liang’s arrest. Liang appeals
to the SC for his acquittal but the SC dismissed, saying that the DFA communication was not binding regarding his immunity.
DOCTRINE: Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the Headquarters Agreement or even the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations because the commission of a crime is not part of official functions which are covered by relative immunity.

1. Liang is an economist working with the Asian as it is of the prosecution.

Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for
allegedly uttering defamatory words and accusations
of theft against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he
was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City
with two counts of grave oral defamation and was
arrested. After fixing petitioners bail at P2,400.00 per
criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody
of the Security Officer of ADB.
2. The next day, the MeTC 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
regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country.
3. 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.
4. When its MR was denied, the prosecution filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC
Pasig which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered
the latter court to enforce its earlier warrant of arrest.
5. After his MR was denied, Liang elevated the case to
this Court via a petition for review.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition denied.
ISSUES/RATIO:
1. Whether the DFA “office of protocol” stating Liang’s
immunity warrants his acquittal—NO.
 The DFAs determination of immunity is only
preliminary which has no binding effect in courts.
Evidentiary basis is needed to show in what
capacity Liang was acting at the time of the
alleged utterances. In any case, mere invocation
of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result
in dropping of charges.
 In receiving ex-parte the DFAs advice and in
motu proprio dismissing the two criminal cases
without notice to the prosecution, the latters right
to due process was violated. It should be noted
that due process is a right of the accused as much
2. Whether Liang is a diplomatic agent entitled to
absolute immunity—NO.
 Section 45(a) of the ADB Headquarters
Agreement1 does not provide absolute immunity,
but only for acts done in "official capacity".
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 an
ultra vires imputation of theft, for official duty. 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 his authority or jurisdiction.
 Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity
from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state
except in the case of an action relating to
professional or commercial activity exercised by
the agent in the receiving state outside his official
functions. Crime is not such a function.
3. Whether the lack of preliminary investigation is a
ground for dismissal of the case—NO. Preliminary
investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable
by the MeTC as it is a purely statutory right invoked only
when specifically granted by law. Besides, the absence of
preliminary investigation does not affect the courts
jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the
information or otherwise render it defective.

1. "Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this Article with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when
experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the the Bank waives the immunity."
following privileges and immunities: a.).......immunity from legal process