JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. ; G.R. No. 125865 - January 28, 2000
TOPIC: Exception to the Generality Principle
GIST:
LIANG, Asian Development Bank(ADB) employee, was charged with and arrested for 2 counts of grave oral defamation. He pleaded immunity by virtue of ADB-Philippine Government (PG) agreement but the court didn't grant immunity. IMMUNITY TO SUITS IS NOT ABSOLUTE when the act committed is outside the performance of official duty.
~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~♡~
FACTS:
1. Petitioner is an economist working with the 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.
2. He was arrested by 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.
3. 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.
4. Based on the said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the criminal cases.
5. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA.
6. 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.
7. 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:
W/N Liang is entitled to immunity by virtue of ADB-PG agreement? - NO
W/N the conduct of preliminary investigation is imperative. - NO
RULING:
1. No. He is not entitled. The court cannot blindly adhere to DFA's determination that a person is covered by immunity. The immunity covered under Sec. 45 (a) of the agreement is not absolute. In order for bank staffs and officers to be immune, the acts should be in the performance of their official capacity. It was necessary to determine whether Liang's case falls under section 45 (a) but the dismissal influenced by DFA's advice was violative to the prosecution's due process when the case was dismissed without notice to the latter. Our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.
2. No. It is not always imperative. 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. Since Liang's case falls under MeTC's jurisdiction, a preliminary investigation was not needed. Besides the absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.
It is a well-settled principle of law that a 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.
- Bakit si mocha ano? may ibang pagkatao. hahahha
Comments
Post a Comment