Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jeffrey Liang (Huefeng), Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent
Jeffrey Liang (Huefeng), Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent
[2]
"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."
the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the act was
done in "official capacity." It is therefore necessary to determine if petitioners case falls within
the ambit of Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should have been given the chance to rebut the
DFA protocol and it must be accorded the opportunity to present its controverting evidence,
should it so desire.
Third, 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.
The imputation of theft isultra 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. It appears that even the governments chief legal counsel, the
Solicitor General, does not support the stand taken by petitioner and that of the DFA.
[3]
[4]
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. As already mentioned above, the
commission of a crime is not part of official duty.
[5]
Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted, suffice it to say
that preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as
the one at bar. Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only
when specifically granted by law. The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary
investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Besides, the
absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts jurisdiction nor does it impair the
validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]