1) D, the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Nepal to the Philippines, leased a house in Baguio City as his personal

vacation home. On account of military disturbance in Nepal, D did not receive his salary and allowances from his
government and so he failed to pay his rentals for more than a year. E, the lessor, filed an action for recovery of his
property with the RTC of Baguio.

a. Can the action prosper?

Yes. The action can prosper. An ambassador does not enjoy immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction in the
case of a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he
holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission. In this case, D leased the hose as his personal
vacation home.
b. Can E ask for the attachment of the furniture and other personal properties of D after getting hold of
evidence that D is about to leave the country?
No. E cannot ask for attachment. The properties of an Ambassador shall be inviolable. Furthermore, Section 4 of RA
No. 75 states that any writ or process whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State,
authorized and received as such by President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister
is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, shall be deemed void.
c. Can E ask the court to stop D’s departure from the Philippines?
No. E cannot stop the departure of the Ambassador. The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not
be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

2) The US Ambassador to the Philippines and the American Consul General also in the Philippines quarreled in the
Ilocos Norte Convention Center and shot each other. A Filipina was injured in the process. May the Philippine courts
take jurisdiction over them for trial and punishment for the crime they may have committed?
Philippine Courts may take jurisdiction against the American Consul General but not against the US Ambassador.
Consuls are not immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. The immunity of consuls from the jurisdiction
of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State under Article 43 of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations applies only in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions and it does not extend to criminal
acts. With respect to the criminal prosecution, the immunity of consuls is limited only to their freedom from arrest or
detention pending trial, except in case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.
Under the Vienna Convention, if criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the
competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official
position and except in the case of a grave crime, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as
possible and when it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with
the minimum of delay.
As to the Ambassador, a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
However, this does not mean that he would be free from the jurisdiction of his own State.

3) A consul accredited to the Republic of the Philippines was caught flagrante delicto in Manila. He was arrested and
detained, and a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in his behalf. Should the writ be granted or denied?
If the prosecution is for a commission of a grave crime, then the writ of Habeas Corpus should be denied. Under Article 41
of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the immunity of a consul from arrest and detention pending trail does not
apply to grave crimes.
However, if the prosecution is not for the commission of a grave crime, then the writ of Habeas Corpus should be granted.
While a consul is not immune from the criminal prosecution of the receiving State, he is however immune from arrest and
detention pending trial for crimes that are not considered grave.

4) Who may waive the privileges and immunities of consular officers and employees? Reasons.
The sending State may waive, with regard to a member of the consular post, any of the privileges and immunities
afforded to the latter. The waiver shall in all cases be express and shall be communicated to the receiving State in
writing. However, the initiation of proceedings by a consular officer or a consular employee in a matter where he might
enjoy immunity from jurisdiction shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any
counterclaim directly connected with the principal claim.

5) Differentiate extradition and deportation.

Extradition means the surrender by force of a wanted person by the requested Stated to the requesting State, while
deportation is the expulsion of an unwanted or undesirable alien.

Extradition may only be made pursuant to a treaty between the requesting State and the requested State, but deportation
is a pure unilateral act and an exercise of sovereignty.

Extradition is for the benefit of the requesting State, but deportation takes place in the interest of the country of
residence and is ordered without a request by a third State.