3- LIANG v. PEOPLE.

docx 1

3- LIANG v. PEOPLE

LIANG VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR no. 125865 January 28, 2000

Petitioner: Jeffrey Liang

Respondent: People of the Philippines

FACTS:
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank
(ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against
fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the MeTC of
Mandaluyong City with two counts of oral defamation. Petitioner was
arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioner’s
bail, 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
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 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 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. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, the
petitioner elevated the case to the SC 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 case.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the petitioner’s case is covered with immunity from
legal process with regard to Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB
and the Philippine Gov’t.
(2) Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was
imperative.
3- LIANG v. PEOPLE.docx 2

HELD:
(1) NO. The petitioner’s case is not covered by the immunity. Courts
cannot blindly adhere to the communication from the DFA that the
petitioner is covered by any immunity. It has no binding effect in courts.
The court needs to protect the right to due process not only of the accused
but also of the prosecution. Secondly, the immunity under Section 45 of
the Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts
must be done in “official capacity”. Hence, 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.
(2) 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.

Hence, SC denied the petition