G.R. No.

125865 January 28, 2000

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

TOPIC AND PRINCIPLE:

Subjects of International Law.

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. The commission of a crime is not part of official
duty.

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).

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 incident, 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:
Whether or not Liang covered with immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the
Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government?

RULING:
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.
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.