LIANG VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR no.

125865 January 28, 2000

Petitioner: Jeffrey Liang

Respondent: People of the Philippines

FACTS:

Petitioner Jeffrey Liang is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce
Cabal, he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two counts of oral
defamation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing
petitioner’s bail, the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next
day, the MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” 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 regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country. Based
on the said protocol communication that PETITIONER IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT, 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 (to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower
court) and mandamus (writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a
specified official act or duty) with the RTC of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and
ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the motion for
reconsideration was denied, the petitioner elevated the case to the SC via a petition for review
arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary
investigation was held before the criminal case.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the petitioner’s case is covered with immunity from legal process with
regard to Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Gov’t.

(2) Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was imperative.

HELD:
(1) NO. The petitioner’s case is not covered by the immunity. Courts cannot blindly adhere to
the communication from the DFA that the petitioner is covered by any immunity. It has no
binding effect in courts. The court needs to protect the right to due process not only of the
accused but also of the prosecution. Secondly, the immunity under Section 45 of the
Agreement is not absolute, but 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.
Slandering a person is not covered by the agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime such as defamation in the name of official duty. Under Vienna
convention on Diplomatic Relations, commission of a crime is not part of official duty.

(2) NO. Preliminary Investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such
as this case. 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.

Hence, SC denied the petition.

Liang vs. People, 323 SCRA 652 (2000)

FACTS: Petitioner is an economist for ADB who was charged by the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong city for allegedly uttering defamatory words against her fellow worker with two
counts of grave oral defamation. MeTC judge then received an office of protocol from the
Department of Foreign Affairs, stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal
process under section 45 of the agreement bet ADB and the government. MeTC judge, without
notice, dismissed the two criminal cases. Prosecution filed writ of mandamus and certiorari and
ordered the MeTC to enforce the warrant of arrest.

ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioner is covered by immunity under the agreement and that no
preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.

RULING: He is not covered by immunity because the commission of a crime is part of the
performance of official duty. Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the
communication from the DFA that a certain person is covered by immunity. That
a person is covered by immunity is preliminary. Due process is right of the accused as much as
the prosecution.

Slandering a person is not covered by the agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime such as defamation in the name of official duty. Under Vienna
convention on Diplomatic Relations, commission of a crime is not part of official duty.

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 than no preliminary
investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. 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.