JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), Petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

G.R. NO. 125865 | March 26, 2001
Justice Ynares-Santiago
Topic: Diplomatic Immunity
FACTS:
Petitioner Liang is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). In
1994, petitioner allegedly uttered defamatory words to Joyce Cabal, a member of the
Clerical staff of ADB. He was charged with 2 counts of grave oral defamation. The
Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, acting pursuant to an advice from the
Department of Foreign Affairs that petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal processes,
dismissed the criminal Information against him.
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 two criminal cases.
The RTC, upon a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the People annulled and
set aside the order of MTC. However, the SC denied the petition for review on the
ground that the immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB is not absolute and is
limited on the official capacity and immunity cannot cover the commission of a crime
such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty. Hence, a motion for
reconsideration is filed.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not petitioner Liang is immune from suit.
RULING:
NO. the slander of a person, by any stretch, cannot be considered as falling within the
purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and personnel. Petitioner argues that
the Decision had the effect of prejudging the criminal case for oral defamation against
him. This Court wish to stress that it did not. What the Court merely stated therein is
that slander, in general, cannot be considered as an act performed in an official capacity.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motions for Reconsideration filed by
petitioner and intervenor Department of Foreign Affairs are DENIED with FINALITY.
PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:
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.