Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 217 views

    Khosrow Minucher vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Arthur Scalzo (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    Khosrow Minucher filed a case for damages against Arthur Scalzo for trumped-up drug trafficking charges. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity as a special agent of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. The trial court denied Scalzo's motion to dismiss based on diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court ruled that Scalzo was entitled to diplomatic immunity as his activities of conducting surveillance and participating in a buy-bust operation with Philippine police fell within the directives of and functions for the US agency he represented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Khosrow Minucher vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Arthur Scalzo (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    217 views2 pages
    Khosrow Minucher filed a case for damages against Arthur Scalzo for trumped-up drug trafficking charges. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity as a special agent of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. The trial court denied Scalzo's motion to dismiss based on diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court ruled that Scalzo was entitled to diplomatic immunity as his activities of conducting surveillance and participating in a buy-bust operation with Philippine police fell within the directives of and functions for the US agency he represented.

    Original Description:

    x

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Khosrow Minucher filed a case for damages against Arthur Scalzo for trumped-up drug trafficking charges. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity as a special agent of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. The trial court denied Scalzo's motion to dismiss based on diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court ruled that Scalzo was entitled to diplomatic immunity as his activities of conducting surveillance and participating in a buy-bust operation with Philippine police fell within the directives of and functions for the US agency he represented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    217 views2 pages

    Khosrow Minucher vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Arthur Scalzo (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Hiroshi Carlos
    Khosrow Minucher filed a case for damages against Arthur Scalzo for trumped-up drug trafficking charges. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity as a special agent of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. The trial court denied Scalzo's motion to dismiss based on diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court ruled that Scalzo was entitled to diplomatic immunity as his activities of conducting surveillance and participating in a buy-bust operation with Philippine police fell within the directives of and functions for the US agency he represented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    KHOSROW MINUCHER vs. HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO (2003)


    G.R. No. 142396
    February 11, 2003

    Facts:
    Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was filed against Minucher
    following a buy-bust operation conducted by Philippine police narcotic agents
    accompanied by Scalzo in the house of Minucher, an Iranian national, where heroin
    was said to have been seized. Minucher was later acquitted by the court.

    Minucher later on filed for damages due to trumped-up charges of drug trafficking
    made by Arthur Scalzo.

    Scalzo on his counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge of his official
    duties as being merely an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the
    United States Department of Justice.

    Scalzo subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that,
    being a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, he was
    entitled to diplomatic immunity. He attached to his motion Diplomatic Note of the
    United States Embassy addressed to DOJ of the Philippines and a Certification of
    Vice Consul Donna Woodward, certifying that the note is a true and faithful copy of
    its original. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic immunity.

    RULLING

    YES.

    A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from
    suit as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of
    the sending state.

    The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the activities of the


    United States Drug Enforcement Agency, however, can be gleaned from the undisputed
    facts in the case.

    The official exchanges of communication between agencies of the government of the


    two countries
    Certifications from officials of both the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs
    and the United States Embassy
    Participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in the buy-bust
    operation conducted at the residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo
    These may be inadequate to support the diplomatic status of the latter but they
    give enough indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if
    not consent, to the activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the
    United States Drug Enforcement Agency.

    The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance on suspected
    drug suppliers and, after having ascertained the target, to inform local law
    enforcers who would then be expected to make the arrest.

    In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting as the poseur-buyer


    during the buy-bust operation, and then becoming a principal witness in the
    criminal case against Minucher,
    Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function
    or duties.

    You might also like