0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
98 Ansichten1 Seite
Khosrow Minucher filed a complaint for damages against Arthur Scalzo, a US Drug Enforcement Agent, following a drug bust at Minucher's house in which Scalzo participated. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity. The trial court did not accept Scalzo's immunity claim for acts committed outside official duties. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Scalzo had diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court ruled the complaint could not be dismissed as it sufficiently alleged Scalzo committed criminal acts in his personal capacity outside official functions, for which he could be civilly liable. There was prima facie evidence Scalzo instigated a frame-up of Minucher and could be held personally responsible for acts beyond his official duties.
Khosrow Minucher filed a complaint for damages against Arthur Scalzo, a US Drug Enforcement Agent, following a drug bust at Minucher's house in which Scalzo participated. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity. The trial court did not accept Scalzo's immunity claim for acts committed outside official duties. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Scalzo had diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court ruled the complaint could not be dismissed as it sufficiently alleged Scalzo committed criminal acts in his personal capacity outside official functions, for which he could be civilly liable. There was prima facie evidence Scalzo instigated a frame-up of Minucher and could be held personally responsible for acts beyond his official duties.
Khosrow Minucher filed a complaint for damages against Arthur Scalzo, a US Drug Enforcement Agent, following a drug bust at Minucher's house in which Scalzo participated. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity. The trial court did not accept Scalzo's immunity claim for acts committed outside official duties. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Scalzo had diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court ruled the complaint could not be dismissed as it sufficiently alleged Scalzo committed criminal acts in his personal capacity outside official functions, for which he could be civilly liable. There was prima facie evidence Scalzo instigated a frame-up of Minucher and could be held personally responsible for acts beyond his official duties.
G.R. No. 142396; February 11, 2003 FACTS: An Information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian with the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City. The criminal charge followed a buy-bust operation by the Philippine police narcotic agents in the house of Minucher, an Iranian national, at the behest of Scalzo, where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was said to have been seized. Scalzo, who is a United States Drugs Enforcement Agent, but was known to Minucher as one working to US Embassy in the Philippines only, became one of the principal witnesses of the prosecution. After almost two years since the institution of the civil case, Scalzo invoked that being a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity. While the trial court gave credence to the claim of Scalzo and the evidence presented by him that he was a diplomatic agent entitled to immunity as such, it ruled that he, nevertheless, should be held accountable for the acts complained of committed outside his official duties. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and sustained the defense of Scalzo that he was sufficiently clothed with diplomatic immunity during his term of duty and thereby immune from the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the Receiving State pursuant to the terms of the Vienna Convention. Hence, this recourse by Minucher. ISSUE: Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic immunity. HELD: The complaint for damages filed by petitioner cannot be peremptorily dismissed. Said complaint contains sufficient allegations which indicate that the private respondent committed the imputed acts in his personal capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and functions. As described in the complaint, he committed criminal acts for which he is also civilly liable. In the Special Appearance to Quash Summons earlier alluded to, on the other hand, private respondent maintains that the claim for damages arose from an alleged tort. Whether such claim arises from criminal acts or from tort, there can be no question that private respondent was sued in his personal capacity for acts committed outside his official functions and duties. In the decision acquitting the petitioner in the criminal case involving the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, copy of which is attached to his complaint for damages and which must be deemed as an integral part thereof, the trial court gave full credit to petitioners theory that he was a victim of a frame-up instigated by the private respondent. Thus, there is a prima facie showing in the complaint that indeed private respondent could be held personally liable for the acts committed beyond his official functions or duties.