Apostol, Joedhel R.

G.R. No. 125865. March 26, 2001

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts
This case has its origin in two criminal information’s 1 for grave oral defamation filed
against petitioner, a Chinese national Jeffrey Liang (Huefeng), who was employed as an
Economist by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) uttered defamatory words to Joyce V. Cabal,
a member of the clerical staff of ADB. On April 13, 1994, the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City, acting pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that
petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal processes, dismissed the criminal information against
him. On a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the People, the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City, Branch 160, annulled and set aside the order of the Metropolitan Trial Court
dismissing the criminal cases.

Petitioner, thus, brought a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Issue
Whether or not the statements allegedly made by petitioner were uttered while in the
performance of his official functions.

Held
No. The provisions of Section 45 (a) of the Agreement Between the Asian Development
Bank and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the
Asian Development Bank only gives immunity to the officers and staff from legal process with
respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity. Slander or oral defamation cannot be
considered as falling within the purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and personnel.

The nature and degree of immunities vary depending on who the recipient is. Under the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is immune from criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving State for all acts, whether private or official, and hence he cannot be
arrested, prosecuted and punished for any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic
immunity is waived. On the other hand, officials of international organizations enjoy "functional"
immunities, that is, only those necessary for the exercise of the functions of the organization
and the fulfilment of its purposes.
 HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY CLAIM (US vs. Britain)

Facts
In 1898, the collection of a tax newly imposed by Great Britain on the natives of Sierra
Leone known as the “hut tax” was the signal for a serious and widespread revolt in the Ronietta
district. The revolt broke out on April 27 and lasted for several days. In the course of rebellion,
all Home Missionary Society’s Establishments were attacked, and either destroyed or damaged,
and some of the missionaries were murdered.

The United States Government through its Embassy in London brought the fact of the
losses sustained by the Home Missionary Society to the attention of the British Government. US
contents that British Government is responsible for the revolt since it wholly failed to take proper
steps for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property, and that the loss of
life and damage to property is the result of such neglect.

Issue
Whether or not revolt is attributable to the British Government.

Held
The court ruled in the negative. Even assuming that the “hut tax” was the effective cause
of the native rebellion, it was in itself a fiscal measure to which British Government was perfectly
entitled to exercise.

It is well established principle of international law that no government can be held

responsible for the act of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation of its authority, where it
is itself guilty of no breach of good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing insurrection.

It is clear that from the outbreak of the insurrection the British authorities took every
measure available for its repression. Despite heavy losses, the troops in the area of revolt were
continually increased. But communication was difficult; the risings occurred simultaneously in
many districts remote from one another and from any common centre; and it was impossible at
a few days' or a few hours' notice to afford full protection to the buildings and properties in every
isolated and distant village. A Government cannot be held liable as the insurer of lives and
property under the circumstances presented in this case it is obvious that the Missionary
Society must have been aware of the difficulties and perils to which it exposes itself in its task of
carrying Christianity to so remote and barbarous a people. The contempt for difficulty and peril
is one of the noblest sides of their missionary zeal.