Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 109 views

    Liang Vs People

    Uploaded by

    jacaringal1
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, an economist for the Asian Development Bank charged with defamation, was not covered by immunity. While the agreement between ADB and the Philippine government provides immunity for official acts, immunity is not absolute and does not cover criminal acts like defamation. The commission of a crime cannot be considered part of one's official duties. Therefore, the petitioner was not immune from criminal prosecution under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Liang Vs People

    Uploaded by

    jacaringal1
    109 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, an economist for the Asian Development Bank charged with defamation, was not covered by immunity. While the agreement between ADB and the Philippine government provides immunity for official acts, immunity is not absolute and does not cover criminal acts like defamation. The commission of a crime cannot be considered part of one's official duties. Therefore, the petitioner was not immune from criminal prosecution under Philippine law.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Liang vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, an economist for the Asian Development Bank charged with defamation, was not covered by immunity. While the agreement between ADB and the Philippine government provides immunity for official acts, immunity is not absolute and does not cover criminal acts like defamation. The commission of a crime cannot be considered part of one's official duties. Therefore, the petitioner was not immune from criminal prosecution under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    109 views2 pages

    Liang Vs People

    Uploaded by

    jacaringal1
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, an economist for the Asian Development Bank charged with defamation, was not covered by immunity. While the agreement between ADB and the Philippine government provides immunity for official acts, immunity is not absolute and does not cover criminal acts like defamation. The commission of a crime cannot be considered part of one's official duties. Therefore, the petitioner was not immune from criminal prosecution under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

     

    Liang vs. People  


    General  Principles/Characteristics  of  Criminal  Law  
    Date:  January  28  2000,  1987  Constitution  
    Ponente:  YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

    ISSUES:    

    Was   the   Petitioner,   who   committed   a   crime   under   Philippine   law,   still   covered   by   the   immunity  
    under  the  agreement  between  ADB  and  Philippine  Government?  

    FACTS:  

    The   petitioner,   an   economist   working   at   Asian   Development   Bank   (ADB)   is   charged   before   the  
    Metropolitan   Trial   Court   with   two   counts   of   grave   oral   defamation   docketed   as   Criminal   Cases   Nos.  
    53170   and   53171.   The   MeTC   judge,   after   receiving   an   "office   of   protocol"   from   DFA   stating   that   the  
    petitioner  is  covered  by  immunity  under  Section  45  of  the  Agreement  between  ADB  and  the  Philippine  
    Government,  without  notice  to  the  prosecution,  dismissed  the  two  criminal  cases.  The  RTC  then  sets  
    aside   the   ruling   of   MeTC   after   the   prosecution   filed   a   petition   for   certiorari   and   mandamus.   The  
    petitioner   elevated   the   case   to   the   Supreme   Court   for   review.   The   Petitioner   argued   that   he   was  
    covered  by  the  immunity  under  the  agreement  between  ADB  and  the  Philippine  Government.  

    HOLDING:  

    First,   the   court   ruled   that   invocation   of   the   immunity   clause   does   not   result   in   the   dropping   of   the  
    charges.  The  DFA’s  resolve  that  the  petitioner  is  covered  by  immunity  has  no  binding  effect  in  courts.  

    Second,  under  Section  45  of  the  Agreement  of  ADB  and  Phil.  Government  which  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:   immunity   from  
    legal   process   with   respect   to   acts   performed   by   them   in   their   official   capacity   except   when   the   Bank  
    waives  the  immunity.”    
    The  “immunity”  from  the  mentioned  agreement  is  not  absolute,  but  subject  to  the  exceptions.  

    Third,   Philippine   laws   do   not   allow   the   commission   of   a   crime,   such   as   defamation,   in   the   name   of  
    official  duty  hence  could  not  possibly  be  covered  by  the  immunity  agreement.    

    “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.”  (Liang  
    vs  People,  2000)  

    “Fourth,  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.5   As   already   mentioned   above,   the   commission   of   a   crime   is   not   part  
    of  official  duty.”  (Liang  vs  People,  2000)  

    The  petition  is  DENIED.  


     
    Justices:  Davide,  Jr.  (C.J.),  Puno,  Kapunan  and  Pardo,  JJ.,  
     

    You might also like