Jeffrey Liang (Huefeng) vs.

People (Motion for Reconsideration)

FACTS:

 On January 28 & 31, 1994 Jeffrey Liang (an economist in ADB) allegedly uttered defamatory words
against Joyce Cabal a Chinese national who was employed and a member of the clerical staff of
Asian Development Bank (ADB).
o The MTC of Mandaluyong dismissed the Criminal Information against Liang, pursuant to
an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Liang enjoyed immunity from legal
processes. But the Regional Trial Court of Pasig set aside the Order of the MTC.
 Jeffrey Liang brought this petition with this Court (The Supreme Court) for review. This Court
denied the petition for review. Thus, this motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Supreme
Court.
 Prior to this incedent, there was an "Agreement Between the Asian Development Bank and the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian
Development Bank" wherein section 45 of the said agreement states 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 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.

ISSUE:

1. Was the judge correct in dismissing the cases on the basis the protocol communication without
notice to the prosecution? NO.
 Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that
petitioner is covered by any immunity.
o The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only
preliminary which has no binding effect in courts.
 In receiving ex-parte the DFA's advice and in motu proprio dismissing the two criminal
cases without notice to the prosecution, the latter's right to due process was violated.
o 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.

2. Is Liang covered with immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between
the ADB and the Philippine Government? NO.
 Under Section 45 of the Agreement which 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."
 The immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the
act was done in "official capacity." 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.
 Likewise, 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. 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.
 Moreover, 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.

3. Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was imperative? NO.

 Preliminary Investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such
as this case. Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only
when specifically granted by law. The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no
preliminary investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Puno:

 Liang contends that a determination of a person's diplomatic immunity by the DFA is a political
question. It is solely within the prerogative of the executive department and is conclusive upon
the courts. Furthermore, the immunity conferred under the ADB Charter and the Headquarters
Agreement is absolute. It is designed to safeguard the autonomy and independence of
international organizations against interference from any authority external to the
organizations. It is necessary to allow such organizations to discharge their entrusted functions
effectively. The only exception to this immunity is when there is an implied or express waiver
or when the immunity is expressly limited by statute. The exception allegedly has no application
to the case at bar.
 "It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers
that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look
beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of
diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in
the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate
suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in this case, or
other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts
may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarrass the
 executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that in
such cases the judicial department of the government follows the action of the political branch
and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."
 Liang, a bank official of ADB, is not entitled to diplomatic immunity and hence his immunity is
not absolute. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is
immune from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State for all acts, whether private or official,
and hence he cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished for any offense he may commit,
unless his diplomatic immunity is waived. On the other hand, officials of international
organizations enjoy "functional" immunities, that is, only those necessary for the exercise of
the functions of the organization and the fulfillment of its purposes. This is the reason why the
ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement explicitly grant immunity from legal process to bank
officers and employees only with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity,
except when the Bank waives immunity. In other words, officials and employees of the ADB are
subject to the jurisdiction of the local courts for their private acts, notwithstanding the absence
of a waiver of immunity.
 Liang cannot also seek relief under the mantle of "immunity from every form of legal process"
accorded to ADB as an international organization. The immunity of ADB is absolute whereas the
immunity of its officials and employees is restricted only to official acts. He stands charged of
grave slander for allegedly uttering defamatory remarks against his secretary. Considering that
the immunity accorded to petitioner is limited only to acts performed in his official capacity, it
becomes necessary to make a factual determination of whether or not the defamatory
utterances were made pursuant and in relation to his official functions as a senior economist.