LIANG v.

PEOPLE Other rulings:

Privileges and Immunities of Foreign Persons | 4 April 1928 - The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only
preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFA's
Digest maker: Africa advice and in motu proprio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the
prosecution, the latter's right to due process was violated.
SUMMARY: Liang an economist working with ADB was charged with grave oral
- On the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted,
defamation. Later on, an office of protocol from DFA was issued stating that Liang enjoys
preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC
immunity under Sec. 45 of the Agreement between ADB and PH. Case dismissed by MeTC,
such as the one at bar. The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary
but was reversed by RTC.
investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.
DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS:
1. Liang, who was an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB),
was charged with two counts of grave oral defamation for allegedly uttering
defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal.
2. Day after bail, MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal
process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine
Government.
3. MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.
a. RTC set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the
warrant of arrest it earlier issued.
4. Petitioner now argues that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that
no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON petitioner is covered by immunity. – NO
- Sec. 45 of the Agreement provides that experts and consultants enjoy immunity from
legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except
when the Bank waives the immunity.
o 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.
- 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.
o As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of
official duty.

RULING: RTC ruling AFFIRMED.

NOTE: