KHOSROW MINUCHER V. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS AND ARTHUR SCALZO

G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003
VITUG, J.

FACTS:
 In May 1986, a violation of Section 4 of RA No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national, and one Abbas
Torabian with the RTC of Pasig City following a “buy-bust operation” wherein a quantity
of heroin was seized. The operation was conducted by the Philippine police narcotic
agents who were accompanied by respondent Arthur Scalzo. The accused were acquitted
on January 09, 1988.
 Prior to the arrest, Minucher and Scalzo already knew each other, maintained a seller-
buyer relationship, and met many times. The former sell caviar, Persian carpets, pistachio
nuts, and other Iranian products. At about 3 pm of May 27, 1986, Scalzo, along with
Filipino and American soldiers, went to Minucher’s house, and handcuffed him and
Torabian. They were then brought to Camp Crame.
 On August 3, 1998, the petitioner filed Civil Case No. 88-45691 before the RTC of
Manila for damages due to trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by the
respondent. Scalzo asserted had acted in the discharge of his official duties as being
merely an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States
Department Justice. He filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that he
was entitled to diplomatic immunity. Manila RTC held that his claim was established by
sufficient evidence. Minucher then filed a petition.

ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic immunity.
RULING:
1. Yes. A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity as long
as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state. The
official exchanges of communication between agencies of the government of the two
countries as well as the participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command
in the “buy-bust operation” conducted at the residence of Minucher give enough
indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur (general grant of
approval), if not consent to the activities of Scalzo within the territory. He was tasked to
conduct surveillance of suspected drug supplies and to inform law enforcers to make the
arrest. His posing as a buyer and transacting with the petitioner is a part of the completion
of his job. His actions were in the scope of his official duties.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Explain the extent and scope of the immunity of a foreign agent operating here in the
Philippines.
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but only as
long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state. The
doctrine of state immunity not only prohibit suits against the state but also those complaints filed
against officials of the state for acts that they performed in the discharge of their duties.
There is, however, limitations, to such doctrine. Unauthorized acts by officials or foreign agents
like those contrary to law are not acts of the State and therefore, not covered by such immunity.
Furthermore, when the agent acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him,
immunity from suit cannot be invoked and the agent can be sued for the act he had done in bad
faith and for the damage he has caused.
Note that the doctrine of immunity cannot be used as an instrument to commit injustices.