G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000
Jeffrey Liang (Huefeng) vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS

Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), was charged with two counts of grave oral defamation before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City for allegedly uttering defamatory words against a co-worker. He was arrested via warrant and released on bail. The MeTC judge subsequently received a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that Liang was immune from legal process under the ADB Headquarters Agreement. Based solely on this ex-parte DFA advice, the judge dismissed the criminal cases without notice to the prosecution.
The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC set aside the MeTC’s dismissal and ordered the enforcement of the arrest warrant. Liang then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing his immunity under the Agreement and the absence of a preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the MeTC correctly dismissed the criminal cases based on the DFA’s claim of immunity for the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion. First, a DFA certification on immunity is merely preliminary and not binding on the courts. The MeTC violated the prosecution’s right to due process by dismissing the cases motu proprio based on an ex-parte communication without affording the prosecution an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that due process is a right of both the accused and the prosecution.
Second, the immunity under Section 45 of the ADB Agreement is not absolute; it applies only to acts performed in an official capacity. Determining whether Liang’s alleged defamatory utterances were official acts requires an evidentiary hearing. The prosecution must be given the chance to present controverting evidence. Furthermore, the commission of a crime, such as defamation, cannot be considered part of official duties. Imputing theft is ultra vires and beyond the scope of authority or immunity.
Third, even under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, immunity from criminal jurisdiction does not extend to acts outside official functions. Finally, the Court ruled that a preliminary investigation is not a matter of right for cases cognizable by the MeTC, its absence neither affects the court’s jurisdiction nor impairs the validity of the information. The MeTC orders were annulled, and the criminal cases were reinstated for proper proceedings.