Liang vs. People  

General  Principles/Characteristics  of  Criminal  Law  
Date:  January  28  2000,  1987  Constitution  
Ponente:  YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

ISSUES:    

Was   the   Petitioner,   who   committed   a   crime   under   Philippine   law,   still   covered   by   the   immunity  
under  the  agreement  between  ADB  and  Philippine  Government?  

FACTS:  

The   petitioner,   an   economist   working   at   Asian   Development   Bank   (ADB)   is   charged   before   the  
Metropolitan   Trial   Court   with   two   counts   of   grave   oral   defamation   docketed   as   Criminal   Cases   Nos.  
53170   and   53171.   The   MeTC   judge,   after   receiving   an   "office   of   protocol"   from   DFA   stating   that   the  
petitioner  is  covered  by  immunity  under  Section  45  of  the  Agreement  between  ADB  and  the  Philippine  
Government,  without  notice  to  the  prosecution,  dismissed  the  two  criminal  cases.  The  RTC  then  sets  
aside   the   ruling   of   MeTC   after   the   prosecution   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   and   mandamus.   The  
petitioner   elevated   the   case   to   the   Supreme   Court   for   review.   The   Petitioner   argued   that   he   was  
covered  by  the  immunity  under  the  agreement  between  ADB  and  the  Philippine  Government.  

HOLDING:  

First,   the   court   ruled   that   invocation   of   the   immunity   clause   does   not   result   in   the   dropping   of   the  
charges.  The  DFA’s  resolve  that  the  petitioner  is  covered  by  immunity  has  no  binding  effect  in  courts.  

Second,  under  Section  45  of  the  Agreement  of  ADB  and  Phil.  Government  which  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   following   privileges   and   immunities:   immunity   from  
legal   process   with   respect   to   acts   performed   by   them   in   their   official   capacity   except   when   the   Bank  
waives  the  immunity.”    
The  “immunity”  from  the  mentioned  agreement  is  not  absolute,  but  subject  to  the  exceptions.  

Third,   Philippine   laws   do   not   allow   the   commission   of   a   crime,   such   as   defamation,   in   the   name   of  
official  duty  hence  could  not  possibly  be  covered  by  the  immunity  agreement.    

“Public  official  may  be  liable  in  his  personal  private  capacity  for  whatever  damage  he  may  have  caused  
by  his  act  done  with  malice  or  in  bad  faith  or  beyond  the  scope  of  his  authority  or  jurisdiction.”  (Liang  
vs  People,  2000)  

“Fourth,  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.5   As   already   mentioned   above,   the   commission   of   a   crime   is   not   part  
of  official  duty.”  (Liang  vs  People,  2000)  

The  petition  is  DENIED.  

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