Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 229 views

    People Vs Liang

    Uploaded by

    jason caballero
    Jeffrey Liang was charged with two counts of oral defamation after making statements about a coworker at the Asian Development Bank, where he worked. The Metropolitan Trial Court initially dismissed the charges after receiving communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Liang had diplomatic immunity. However, the Regional Trial Court set aside the dismissal, finding that the DFA's determination of immunity did not bind the courts. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that courts must independently determine immunity claims and that defamation generally does not qualify as an official act. It denied Liang's petition for reconsideration, concluding he failed to show reason to overturn the prior ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Liang

    Uploaded by

    jason caballero
    229 views2 pages
    Jeffrey Liang was charged with two counts of oral defamation after making statements about a coworker at the Asian Development Bank, where he worked. The Metropolitan Trial Court initially dismissed the charges after receiving communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Liang had diplomatic immunity. However, the Regional Trial Court set aside the dismissal, finding that the DFA's determination of immunity did not bind the courts. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that courts must independently determine immunity claims and that defamation generally does not qualify as an official act. It denied Liang's petition for reconsideration, concluding he failed to show reason to overturn the prior ruling.

    Original Description:

    CRIMINAL LAW

    Original Title

    3. People vs Liang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jeffrey Liang was charged with two counts of oral defamation after making statements about a coworker at the Asian Development Bank, where he worked. The Metropolitan Trial Court initially dismissed the charges after receiving communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Liang had diplomatic immunity. However, the Regional Trial Court set aside the dismissal, finding that the DFA's determination of immunity did not bind the courts. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that courts must independently determine immunity claims and that defamation generally does not qualify as an official act. It denied Liang's petition for reconsideration, concluding he failed to show reason to overturn the prior ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Liang

    Uploaded by

    jason caballero
    Jeffrey Liang was charged with two counts of oral defamation after making statements about a coworker at the Asian Development Bank, where he worked. The Metropolitan Trial Court initially dismissed the charges after receiving communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Liang had diplomatic immunity. However, the Regional Trial Court set aside the dismissal, finding that the DFA's determination of immunity did not bind the courts. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that courts must independently determine immunity claims and that defamation generally does not qualify as an official act. It denied Liang's petition for reconsideration, concluding he failed to show reason to overturn the prior ruling.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    125865 March 26, 2001

    JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,


    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

    FACTS

    In January 2008, Joyce V. Cabal a member of a clerical staff of ADB, filed before
    Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong two grave oral defamation against petitioner
    Jeffrey Liang. Petitioner was arrested and after fixing petitioner's bail, the MeTC released
    him.

    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
    (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. The protocol states that the petitioner is immune
    from suit and the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal
    cases.

    Joyce Cabal filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. When its
    motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the
    Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the
    latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued.

    After the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the case to the
    Supreme Court via a petition 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.

    The petition is not impressed with merit.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the petitioners case is covered with immunity

    Whether or not the conduct of primary investigation was imperative.

    RULLING:

    Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that
    petitioner is covered by any immunity. The DFA's determination that a certain person is
    covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. The needed
    inquiry in what capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged utterances requires
    for its resolution evidentiary basis that has yet to be presented at the proper time.
    Section 45 of the Agreement provides Officers and staff of the Bank including for the
    purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy
    the privileges of immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their
    official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity.

    On October 18, 2000, the oral arguments of the parties were heard.

    After a careful deliberation of the arguments raised in petitioner's and intervenor's Motions
    for Reconsideration, the supreme court find no cogent reason to disturb their decision.
    Petitioner argues that the Decision had the effect of prejudging the criminal case for oral
    defamation against him. The Supreme Court 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

    You might also like