View full case

JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner, an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), was charged with grave oral defamation for allegedly uttering defamatory words against a fellow ADB worker. He was arrested and released on bail. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) received a protocol communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that the petitioner is immune from legal process under an Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government. Based on this communication, the MeTC judge dismissed the criminal cases without notice to the prosecution. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which set aside the MeTC rulings. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary investigation was conducted.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner is covered by diplomatic immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government.

  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation before the filing of criminal cases in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).

RULING:

  1. Petitioner is not automatically covered by diplomatic immunity merely based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). The determination of immunity by the DFA is only preliminary and not binding on the courts. Additionally, the slanderous act alleged against the petitioner is not within the scope of "acts performed in an official capacity" which is a condition for immunity under Section 45(a) of the Agreement.

  2. The petitioner is not entitled to preliminary investigation as a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC. The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, nor does it impair the validity of the information filed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Immunity from legal process for bank officers and staff under international agreements is not absolute and requires determination of the official capacity of the acts performed.

  • Communications from the DFA regarding immunity are preliminary and not binding on the courts.

  • Due process rights apply equally to both the prosecution and the accused.

  • Criminal acts, such as defamation, are not protected under the immunity conferred by international agreements if they are not performed in an official capacity.

  • The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does not provide immunity for criminal acts outside of official functions.

  • Preliminary investigation is not a statutory right for cases under the jurisdiction of the MeTC.