G.R. No.

125865 January 28, 2000

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,,respondents.
SUMMARY/ FACTS
Petitioner Liang was allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker
Joyce Cabal. The petitioner then later was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation. After fixing the
petitioner's bail at P2,400.00 per criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody of
the Security Officer of ADB.
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 (hereinafter
Agreement) in the country.
The MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.
As a result, the latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA and
later denied. Consequently, prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the
RTC.
After the motion for reconsideration was denied, the prosecution requested to this
Court for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no
preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, does the petitioner immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement
between the ADB and the PhilippineGovernment regarding the Headquarters of the ADB
(hereinafter Agreement) in the country is enforceable.
RULINGS
NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the DFA's determination that a certain person is
covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. It is also
stated in the Section 45 of the Agreement, immunity from legal process with respect to acts
performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunityIn
addition, the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that
the act was done in "official capacity”.
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
The Court also ruled that even 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.