Liang vs.
People
G.R. No. 125865 | January 28, 2000
Petition: Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Pasig City. After the motion for reconsideration was denied,
petitioner elevated the case to SC with a petition for review.
Petitioner: JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG)
Respondent: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
DOCTRINE
The imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot be part of official functions. It is
well-settled principle of law that a 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.
FACTS
- Jeffrey Liang is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank.
- In 1994, he uttered defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce
Cabal, so he was charged with two counts of oral defamation.
o arrested and fixed bail
o was then released to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB
- The MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the DFA stating that
petitioner is covered by immunity as provided by under section 45 of the
Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government.
- The MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the criminal
cases.
- The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the
DFA.
- When its motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari
and mandamus with the RTC of Pasig City.
- RTC of Pasig
o set aside the MeTC rulings
o ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier
issued
- Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. W/N the petitioner is covered with immunity as provided by Section 45 of the
Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government — NO
RULING & RATIO
1. NO.
- The immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement is not absolute; it is
subject to the exception that the acts must be done in “official capacity”.
- Hence, 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.
o The imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot be part of official
functions.
o A 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.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
NOTES
- 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:
o immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by
them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the
immunity.
- 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.
- The rule on the criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary
investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the
MeTC.8 Besides the absence of preliminary investigation does not affect
the court's jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or
otherwise render it defective.
- Disposition for 2001 Resolution by SC:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motions for Reconsideration
filed by petitioner and intervenor Department of Foreign Affairs are
DENIED with FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.