Sison, Carl Samuel F.

Liang vs. People

G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

C. Characteristics of Criminal Law 1) General a. Concept b. Exceptions

Facts:
This criminal case is about two counts of oral defamation committed by Liang (petitioner) against his co-
worker at Asian Development Bank (ADB) sometime in 1994 and was charged before the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC). Coming from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the MeTC judge received
an “office of protocol” stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45
of the Agreement between ADB and the Philippine Government. But still, the judge dismissed the two
criminal cases. The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA.
Thus, the petitioner elevated this to this Court.
Issue:
Does the Section 45 of the Agreement between ADB and the Philippine Government grants immunity to
the petitioner for the crime of defamation?
Ruling:

No, the petitioner is not immune in this circumstance because under Section 45 of the Agreement 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:

a.) immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when
the Bank waives the immunity.

In our Philippine Laws, slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement
because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime such as defamation in the name of “official
duty”. It is ultra vires due to not being part of any “official duty” to commit slanderous statements against
any person which will now be an act committed in the private capacity of the slanderer. Hence, there may
be immunities such as PD 1620 and the agreement incorporated in our laws but there is an exception that
the crime committed must be in the act of “official duty” in order for the violator to be granted the
privilege of immunity covered by such special laws. Thus, the petition is denied.