Liang V Oeioke

The petition is not impressed with merit.
FIRST DIVISION First, courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the
communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any
[G.R. No. 125865. January 28, 2000] immunity. The DFAs determination that a certain person is covered
by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts.
In receiving ex-parte the DFAs advice and in motu proprio dismissing
JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent. the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution, the latters
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.
DECISION The needed inquiry in what capacity petitioner was acting at the time
of the alleged utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary basis
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: that has yet to be presented at the proper time.[1] At any rate, it has
been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges.[2]
(ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words
against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the Second, under Section 45 of the Agreement which provides: Jksm
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two
counts of grave oral defamation docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. "Officers and staff of the Bank including for the
53170 and 53171. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant purpose of this Article experts and consultants
issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioners bail at P2,400.00 per performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the
criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody of the following privileges and immunities:
Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received an
"office of protocol" from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process a.).......immunity from legal process with
respect to acts performed by them in their
under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the
official capacity except when the Bank
Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB
waives the immunity."
(hereinafter Agreement) 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 immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the
The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by exception that the act was done in "official capacity." It is therefore
the DFA. When its motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition necessary to determine if petitioners case falls within the ambit of
for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should have been given the
Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the
court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so desire.
motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the case
to this Court via a petition for review arguing that he is covered by Third, slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the
immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary investigation immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission
was held before the criminal cases were filed in court. of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.[3] The
imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot be part of official
functions. It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may [4] Shauf v. CA, 191 SCRA 713 (1990); Animos v. Phil. Veterans
be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he Affairs Office, 174 SCRA 214 (1989); Dumlao v. CA, 114 SCRA 247
may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or (1982)
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.[4] It appears that [5] Section 31, 1 (c); See also Minucher v. CA, 214 SCRA 242 (1992)
even the governments chief legal counsel, the Solicitor General, [6] See Del Rosario, Jr. v. Bartolome, 270 SCRA 645 (1997)
does not support the stand taken by petitioner and that of the DFA. [7] People v. Abejuela, 38 SCRA 324 (1971)
[8] Section 1, Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[9] People v. Gomez, 117 SCRA 72 (1982); People v. Casiano, 1
Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a
diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from SCRA 478 (1961)
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.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime
is not part of official duty.
Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary investigation

conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary investigation is not a
matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at
bar.[6]Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be
invoked only when specifically granted by law.[7] The rule on criminal
procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in
cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.[8] Besides, the
absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts
jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or
otherwise render it defective.[9]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ.,

concur.2/22/00 9:47 AM
[1] See United States v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 (1990)

[2] Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282 (1991)
[3] M.H. Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357, 368 (1992)

Liang V Oeioke

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liang V Oeioke

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liang V Oeioke

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The petition is not impressed with merit.

Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary investigation

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ.,

[1] See United States v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 (1990)

You might also like