Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Liang vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Abi Gie
    Jeffrey Liang, an economist working for the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation for making defamatory statements against a coworker. He claimed immunity from legal process based on his position. The trial court initially dismissed the case based on the immunity claim but was later ordered to enforce the arrest warrant. The Supreme Court denied Liang's petition, finding that the foreign affairs department's determination of immunity has no binding effect in courts. It also found that defamation falls outside official duties and is not covered by immunity agreements.

    Copyright:

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

    Liang vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Abi Gie
    40 views1 page
    Jeffrey Liang, an economist working for the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation for making defamatory statements against a coworker. He claimed immunity from legal process based on his position. The trial court initially dismissed the case based on the immunity claim but was later ordered to enforce the arrest warrant. The Supreme Court denied Liang's petition, finding that the foreign affairs department's determination of immunity has no binding effect in courts. It also found that defamation falls outside official duties and is not covered by immunity agreements.

    Original Title

    Liang vs. People.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jeffrey Liang, an economist working for the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation for making defamatory statements against a coworker. He claimed immunity from legal process based on his position. The trial court initially dismissed the case based on the immunity claim but was later ordered to enforce the arrest warrant. The Supreme Court denied Liang's petition, finding that the foreign affairs department's determination of immunity has no binding effect in courts. It also found that defamation falls outside official duties and is not covered by immunity agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views1 page

    Liang vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Abi Gie
    Jeffrey Liang, an economist working for the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation for making defamatory statements against a coworker. He claimed immunity from legal process based on his position. The trial court initially dismissed the case based on the immunity claim but was later ordered to enforce the arrest warrant. The Supreme Court denied Liang's petition, finding that the foreign affairs department's determination of immunity has no binding effect in courts. It also found that defamation falls outside official duties and is not covered by immunity agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Liang vs.

    People
    G.R. No. 125865           January 28, 2000
    JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,
    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

    Facts:
    - Jeffrey Liang (Petitioner) was an economist working with the Asian
    Development Bank.
    - In 1994, he was charged with two (2) counts of grave oral defamation before
    the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Madaluyong City for uttering
    defamatory words against Joyce Cabal his fellow ADB worker.
    - Petitioner was arrested by virtue of warrant of arrest issued by the MeTC and
    after posting bail (2,400/criminal charged) he was released.
    - The next day, the MeTC judged received an “office of protocol” from DFA
    stating that the Petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process.
    - The judge then dismissed the case without notice to the prosecution.
    - The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration but was opposed by DFA.
    - The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the
    RTC of Pasig City, which then set aside the ruling of MeTC and ordered
    MeTC to enforce the issued warrant of arrest.
    - After the petition was denied, the petitioner elevated the case to Supreme
    Court via a Petition for review arguing the immunity of the immunity of the
    Petitioner in here.
    Issue:
    W/N the Petitioner is covered with the immunity from legal process w/ regards to
    the agreement.

    Ruling:
    The petition was denied.

    Rationale:
    - The DFA’s determination about the immunity of a person is only preliminary
    and has no binding effect in courts.
    - The immunity mentioned is not absolute and subject to the exception that the
    act was done in “official capacity”.
    - Slandering a person could not be covered by the immunity agreement
    because our laws do not allow commission of crime such as defamation
    especially in the name of “official duty”.
    - And under the Vienna Convention on diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent
    shall enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except
    when the action is outside of his official function.

    You might also like