LIANG VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR no. 125865
January 28, 2000
Petitioner:
Jeffrey Liang
Respondent:
People of the Philippines
FACTS:
Petitioner
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 and mandamus
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.
(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.
yhuppp
ReplyDeleteGreat post, you have pointed out some fantastic details , I too conceive this s a very fantastic website. Venito
ReplyDeleteHi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it’s truly informative. I’ll be grateful if you continue this in future. Lots of people will benefit from your writing. Cheers! Leather Watch Bands
ReplyDelete