G.R. No.

125865           January 28, 2000

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

RELATED TOPIC: DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

FACTS:
 Petitioner is an economist working at Asian Development Bank.
 1994, he was charged with 2 counts of grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory
words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal
 Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) issued warrant of arrest, petitioner bailed out for
P2,400.00 per criminal charge and was released to the custody of ADB’s security officer.
 MeTC released petitioner by virtue of “office protocol” received from DFA stating that
petitioner was covered by immunity from legal processes under section 45 of the
agreement between ADB and PH government
 MeTC dismissed the criminal cases by virtue of the agreement. Prosecution, without
being notified, filed for motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied.
 Prosecution filed for certiorari and mandamus with RTC of Pasig city which ordered
the arrest of the petitioner, hereby setting aside the ruling of MeTC.
 Petitioner elevated the case to SC via petition for review arguing that he is covered by
immunity under the agreement and no preliminary investigation was held before
criminal cases were filed in court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process as provided by the
agreement between Asian Development Bank and the PH government.

RULING:
NO, THE PETITIONER IS NOT covered by immunity from legal process as provided by the
agreement between Asian Development Bank and the PH government.
1. WITH REGARDS TO THE METC’s DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL
CHARGES AFTER RECEIVING THE “OFFICE PROTOCOL” FROM DFA:

 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 propio 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. 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. WITH REGARDS THE IMMUNITY BASED ON THE AGREEMENT OF ADB

AND PH GOVERNMENT

Section 45 of the Agreement 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 IS NOT ABSOLUTE.

 SLANDER TO A PERSON OR DEFAMATION, A COMMISSION OF A CRIME IS

NOT ALLOWED UNDER OUR LAWS AS ACTS IN THE NAME OF OFFICIAL
DUTY

 IT IS A WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE 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.