Liang vs.

Peole
FACTS: 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.

ISSUES:

1. Was the judge correct in dismissing the cases on the basis the protocol communication
without notice to the prosecution?

2. Is Liang covered with immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement
between the ADB and the Philippine Government?

HELD:

1. No. Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA
that petitioner is covered by any immunity. 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. 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. 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. (Liang vs
People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000)

FACTS

Petitioner is an economist working with the ADB. Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against
a fellow ADB worker, he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral
defamation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. He was, thereafter, released on bail.
The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by
immunity from legal process under the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government. The MeTC
judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is covered by immunity under the Agreement

RULING

No. The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding
effect in courts. It has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the
dropping of the charges. Also, Section 45 of the Agreement provides that the immunity is not absolute, but subject to
the exception that the acts was 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 defamation, in the name of
official duty.