Liang vs People FACTS:

2 criminal informations for for grave oral defamation were filed

against Jeffrey Liang, a Chinese national who was employed as an
conomist !y the Asian "evelopment #an$ %A"#&, !y Joyce '( Ca!al, a
mem!er of the clerical staff of A"#
)TC: dismissed the complaint stating that Liang en*oyed imm+nity
from legal processes
,TC: -pon a petition for certiorari and mandam+s filed !y the
People of the Philippines ann+lled and set aside the order of )TC
SC: "enied petition for review on the gro+nd that the imm+nity
granted to officers and staff of the A"# is not a!sol+te and is limited on
the official capacity and imm+nity CA../T cover the commission of a
crime s+ch as slander or oral defamation in the name of official d+ty
0A motion of reconsideration is filed
1SS-: 23. the crime of oral deflamation en*oys imm+nity
4L": ./
slander, in general, cannot !e considered as an act performed in an
official capacity
iss+e of whether or not petitioner5s +tterances constit+ted oral
defamation is still for the trial co+rt to determine
P-./, J(, conc+rring:
the nat+re and degree of imm+nities vary depending on who the
recipient is( -nder the 'ienna Convention on "iplomatic ,elations, a
diplomatic envoy is imm+ne from criminal *+risdiction of the receiving
State for all acts, whether private or official, and hence he cannot !e
arrested, prosec+ted and p+nished for any offense he may commit, +nless
his diplomatic imm+nity is waived( /n the other hand, officials of
international organi6ations en*oy 7f+nctional7 imm+nities, that is, only
those necessary for the e8ercise of the f+nctions of the organi6ation and
the f+lfillment of its p+rposes( officials and employees of the A"# are
s+!*ect to the *+risdiction of the local co+rts for their private acts,
notwithstanding the a!sence of a waiver of imm+nity
if the imm+nity does not e8ist, there is nothing to certify !y the "FA
Liang vs( People, 929 SC,A :;2 %2<<<&
FACTS: Petitioner is an economist for A"# who was charged !y the
)etropolitan Trial Co+rt of )andal+yong city for allegedly +ttering
defamatory words against her fellow wor$er with two
co+nts of grave oral defamation( )eTC *+dge then received an office of
protocol from the "epartment of Foreign Affairs, stating that petitioner is
covered !y imm+nity from legal process +nder section =; of the
agreement !et A"# and the government( )eTC *+dge, witho+t notice,
dismissed the two criminal cases( Prosec+tion filed writ of mandam+s
and certiorari and ordered
the )eTC to enforce the warrant of arrest(
1SS-S: 2hether or not the petitioner is covered !y imm+nity +nder the
agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held !efore the
criminal cases were filed in co+rt(
,-L1.>: 4e is not covered !y imm+nity !eca+se the commission of a
crime is part of the performance of official d+ty( Co+rts cannot !lindly
adhere and ta$e on its face the comm+nication from the "FA that a
certain person is covered !y imm+nity( That
a person is covered !y imm+nity is preliminary( "+e process is right of
the acc+sed as m+ch as the prosec+tion(
Slandering a person is not covered !y the agreement !eca+se o+r laws do
not allow the commission of a crime s+ch as defamation in the name of
official d+ty( -nder 'ienna
convention on "iplomatic ,elations, commission of a crime is not part of
official d+ty(
/n the contention that there was no preliminary investigation cond+cted,
s+ffice it to say that preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in
cases cogni6a!le !y the )eTC s+ch as the one at !ar( #eing p+rely a
stat+tory right, preliminary investigation may !e invo$ed only when
specifically granted !y law( The r+le on criminal proced+re is clear than
no preliminary investigation is re?+ired in cases falling within the
*+risdiction of the )eTC( #esides, the a!sence of preliminary
investigation does not affect the co+rt@s *+risdiction nor does it
impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it
defective(
A4/S,/2 )1.-C4,, petitioner, vs( 4/.( C/-,T /F APPALS
and A,T4-, SCALB/, respondents

FACTS:
Ahosrow )in+cher, an 1ranian national and a La!or AttachC for the
1ranian m!assies in To$yo, Japan and )anila came to the co+ntry to
st+dy in DEF= and contin+ed to stay as head of the 1ranian .ational
,esistance )ovement(
1n )ay DEG:, )in+cher was charged with an 1nformation for
violation of ,ep+!lic Act .o( :=2;, "angero+s "r+gs Act of DEF2( The
criminal charge followed a H!+yI!+st operationJ cond+cted !y the
Philippine police narcotic agents in his ho+se where a ?+antity of heroin
was said to have !een sei6ed( The narcotic agents were accompanied !y
private respondent Arth+r Scal6o who !ecame one of the principal
witnesses for the prosec+tion(
1n A+g+st DEGG, )in+cher filed Civil Case !efore the ,egional Trial
Co+rt %,TC& for damages on the Ktr+mpedI+p@ charges of dr+g traffic$ing
made !y Arth+r Scal6o(

1SS-: 2/. private respondent Arth+r Scal6o can !e s+ed provided his
alleged diplomatic imm+nity conforma!ly with the 'ienna Convention
on "iplomatic ,elations

,-L1.>: The SC ".1" the petition(

Conforma!ly with the 'ienna Convention, the f+nctions of the
diplomatic mission involve, the representation of the interests of the
sending state and promoting friendly relations with the receiving state(
/nly Hdiplomatic agents,J are vested with !lan$et diplomatic imm+nity
from civil and criminal s+its( 1ndeed, the main yardstic$ in ascertaining
whether a person is a diplomat entitled to imm+nity is the determination
of whether or not he performs d+ties of diplomatic nat+re( #eing an
Attache, Scal6o@s main f+nction is to o!serve, analy6e and interpret
trends and developments in their respective fields in the host co+ntry and
s+!mit reports to their own ministries or departments in the home
government( 4e is not generally regarded as a mem!er of the diplomatic
mission( /n the !asis of an erroneo+s ass+mption that simply !eca+se of
the diplomatic note, divesting the trial co+rt of *+risdiction over his
person, his diplomatic imm+nity is contentio+s(

-nder the related doctrine of State 1mm+nity from S+it, the precept that a
State cannot !e s+ed in the co+rts of a foreign state is a longIstanding r+le
of c+stomary international law( 1f the acts giving rise to a s+it are those of
a foreign government done !y its foreign agent, altho+gh not necessarily
a diplomatic personage, !+t acting in his official capacity, the complaint
co+ld !e !arred !y the imm+nity of the foreign sovereign from s+it
witho+t its consent( S+ing a representative of a state is !elieved to !e, in
effect, s+ing the state itself( The proscription is not accorded for the
!enefit of an individ+al !+t for the State, in whose service he is, +nder the
ma8im L par in parem, non ha!et imperi+m L that all states are sovereign
e?+als and cannot assert *+risdiction over one another( The implication is
that if the *+dgment against an official wo+ld re?+ire the state itself to
perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, s+ch as the appropriation
of the amo+nt needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the s+it
m+st !e regarded as !eing against the state itself, altho+gh it has not !een
formally impleaded
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can !e cloa$ed with
imm+nity from s+it !+t only as long as it can !e esta!lished that he is
acting within the directives of the sending state( The consent of the host
state is an indispensa!le re?+irement of !asic co+rtesy !etween the two
sovereigns(
The H!+yI!+st operationJ and other s+ch acts are indication that the
Philippine government has given its imprimat+r, if not consent, to the
activities within Philippine territory of agent Scal6o of the -nited States
"r+g nforcement Agency( 1n cond+cting s+rveillance activities on
)in+cher, later acting as the pose+rI!+yer d+ring the !+yI!+st operation,
and then !ecoming a principal witness in the criminal case against
)in+cher, Scal6o hardly can !e said to have acted !eyond the scope of
his official f+nction or d+ties(
)in+cher v CA
"octrine:
Filing a motion to ?+ash, which, in effect already waives any defect in the
service of s+mmons !y earlier as$ing an e8tension to file time to file an
Answer and filing an Answer with Co+nterclaim(
Facts:
Ahosrow )in+cher is the La!or AttachC of the m!assy of 1ran in the
Phil( Arth+r Scal6o, then connected with the American m!assy in
)anila, was introd+ced to him !y Jose 1nigo %an informer !elonging to
the military intelligence comm+nity&(
Accdg( to 1nigo, Scal6o was interested in !+ying 1ranian prod+cts
li$e caviar and carpets( )in+cher complained to Scal6o a!o+t his
pro!lems with the American m!assy regarding the e8pired visas of his
wife, A!!as Tora!ian( /ffering help, Scal6o gave )in+cher a calling card
showing that the former is an agent of the "r+g nforcement
Administration %"A& assigned to the American m!assy in )anila( As a
res+lt, Scal6o e8pressed his intent to !+y caviar and f+rther promised to
arrange the renewal of the visas(
Scal6o went to )in+cher5s residence and as$ed to !e entr+sted with
Persian sil$ carpets, for which he had a !+yer( The ne8t day, Scal6o
ret+rned and claimed that he had already made arrangements with his
contacts concerning the visas and as$ed for M2,<<<(
1t t+rned o+t that Scal6o prepared a plan to frameI+p a )in+cher and
wife for alleged heroin traffic$ing( #oth were falsely arrested and
charged with violations of the "angero+s "r+gs Act(
)in+cher prays for act+al and compensatory damages( 4owever,
co+nsel for Scal6o filed a motion to ?+ash s+mmons alleging that the
defendant is !eyond the processes of the Philippine co+rt for the action
for damages is a personal action and that Scal6o is o+tside the
Philippines(
TC denied the motion( CA dismissed the motion for lac$ of merit on
the !asis of the erroneo+s ass+mption that !eca+se of the "iplomatic
.ote %advising the "FA that Scal6o is a mem!er of the -S diplomatic
mission investigating )in+cher for dr+g traffic$ing&, Scal6o is clothed
with diplomatic imm+nity(
1ss+e:
2hether or not a complaint for damages !e dismissed in the sole !asis of
a statement complained in a "iplomatic .ote(
4eld:
.o( J+risdiction over the person of the defendant is ac?+ired !y
either vol+ntary appearance or !y the service of s+mmons( 1n the case,
Scal6o5s co+nsel filed a motion to ?+ash, which, in effect already waived
any defect in the service of s+mmons !y earlier as$ing an e8tension to
file time to file an Answer and filing an Answer with Co+nterclaim(
The complaint for damages cannot !e dismissed( Said complaint contains
s+fficient allegations which indicate that Scal6o committed imp+ted acts
in his personal capacity and o+tside the scope of his official d+ties and
f+nctions( The TC gave credit to )in+cher5s theory that he was a victim
of frameI+p hence, there is a prima facie showing that Scal6o co+ld !e
held personally lia!le for his acts( F+rther, Scal6o did not come forward
with evidence to, prove that he acted in his official capacity(