Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    (CD) Liang v. People - G.R. No. 125865 - AZapanta

    Uploaded by

    The Concerned Lawstudent
    1) Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with uttering defamatory words against a coworker. 2) The trial court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating Petitioner had immunity. However, such determinations of immunity do not bind courts. 3) The court found that due process rights of both the accused and prosecution must be considered. Further inquiry is also needed to determine if the alleged acts fell within the scope of Petitioner's duties. Immunity does not automatically drop charges, and crimes are outside an agent's official functions.

    Copyright:

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

    (CD) Liang v. People - G.R. No. 125865 - AZapanta

    Uploaded by

    The Concerned Lawstudent
    39 views1 page
    1) Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with uttering defamatory words against a coworker. 2) The trial court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating Petitioner had immunity. However, such determinations of immunity do not bind courts. 3) The court found that due process rights of both the accused and prosecution must be considered. Further inquiry is also needed to determine if the alleged acts fell within the scope of Petitioner's duties. Immunity does not automatically drop charges, and crimes are outside an agent's official functions.

    Original Title

    [CD] Liang v. People - G.R. No. 125865 - AZapanta

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with uttering defamatory words against a coworker. 2) The trial court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating Petitioner had immunity. However, such determinations of immunity do not bind courts. 3) The court found that due process rights of both the accused and prosecution must be considered. Further inquiry is also needed to determine if the alleged acts fell within the scope of Petitioner's duties. Immunity does not automatically drop charges, and crimes are outside an agent's official functions.

    Copyright:

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

    (CD) Liang v. People - G.R. No. 125865 - AZapanta

    Uploaded by

    The Concerned Lawstudent
    1) Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with uttering defamatory words against a coworker. 2) The trial court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating Petitioner had immunity. However, such determinations of immunity do not bind courts. 3) The court found that due process rights of both the accused and prosecution must be considered. Further inquiry is also needed to determine if the alleged acts fell within the scope of Petitioner's duties. Immunity does not automatically drop charges, and crimes are outside an agent's official functions.

    Copyright:

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

    JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), PETITIONER, VS.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


    RESPONDENT.
    G.R. No. 125865
    January 28, 2000
    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
    Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City
    The 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 regarding the Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) 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 two 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 Regional Trial Court (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, petitioner elevated the case to this Court 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 cases were filed in court.
    ISSUE
    Whether or not the doctrine of immunity from suits, of State agents, exclude actions which are not in the
    scope of their duties? (YES)
    RULING
    Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is
    covered by any immunity. 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 advice and in motu
    proprio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution, the latter’s right to due
    process was violated. It should be noted that due process is a right of the accused as much as it is of the
    prosecution. The needed inquiry in what capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged
    utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary basis that has yet to be presented at the proper time. [1] At
    any rate, it has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the
    dropping of the charges.
    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. As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of official duty.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy