JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v.

PEOPLE parte the DFA's advice and in motu propio dismissing the two criminal cases
without notice to the prosecution, the latter's right to due process was
G.R. No. 125865 | January 28, 2000 | YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. | Tamayo
violated.
BASIC PRINCIPLES (Table 1): Generality  Second, under Section 45 of the Agreement,1 the immunity mentioned
therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the act was done
Summary: Petitioner, an economist with the ADB, was charged with oral in "official capacity."
defamation. The DFA sent a protocol communication to the trial court stating that  Third, slandering a person is not covered by the agreement because our laws
petitioner is immune from legal process. The SC held that this immunity does not do not allow the commission of a crime such as defamation in the name of
apply to criminal proceedings.
official duty.
Doctrine: Commission of a crime is NOT part of the performance of official duty,  Fourth, under Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic
hence not covered under the immunity agreement. 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
Issue: Whether the accused is immune from criminal prosecution under an immunity the receiving state outside his official functions.
agreement. – NO.  Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary investigation
conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary investigation is not a matter of
Facts:
right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at bar. Being purely a
 Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only when
Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow specifically granted by law. Besides, the absence of preliminary investigation
ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong does not affect the court’s jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the
City with two counts of grave oral defamation. information or otherwise render it defective.
 After petitioner was released from bail, the MeTC judge received an "office
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
of protocol" the following day 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.
 The MeTC judge thus dismissed the two criminal cases.
 The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC
which set aside the MeTC rulings.
 After his MR was denied, petitioner elevated the case to this Court via
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.

Ratio:

 First, courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication
from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any immunity. In receiving ex-

1
Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this Article experts and a.) immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their
consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity.
and immunities: