PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000

Facts:

Jeffrey Liang is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB)
who was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City for two counts of grave oral
defamation for allegedly uttering defamatory words against his fellow ADB worker Joyce
Cabal.

Liang was then arrested by virtue of a Warrant of Arrest issued by the MeTC. The
day after affixing his bail and was released to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB,
the MeTC Judge received an office protocol from the Department of Foreign affairs
(DFA) stating that Liang is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of
the ADB Headquarters Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government.

The MeTC Judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two cases.
After the motion for reconsideration was denied, prosecution filed a petition the RTC set
aside the ruling of MeTC and ordered to enforce the Warrant o Arrest earlier issued.

The respondent then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not, Liang is covered by the immunity under Section 45 of the ADB
Headquarters Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government?

Ruling:

No. Under section 45 of the agreement with 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:

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 acts was done in "official capacity." It is therefore necessary to determine if
petitioner's case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a).

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 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.

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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.