Subject

Matter:
Characteristics of Criminal Law; General
Relevant Codal Provisions/Doctrine (if given):
Khosrow Minucher,petitioner v. Court of Appeals & Arthur W. Scalzo, Jr., respondents
G.R. NO. 97765 / xx SCRA xx / 11 February 2003
Ponente: Vitug J.
Facts:

Minucher is an Iranian national who came to study in UP in 1974 and was appointed Labor Attache
for the Iranian Embassy in Manila; he continued to stay in the Philippines when the Shah of Iran was
deposed by Khomeini, he became a refugee of the UN and he headed the Iranian National Resistance
Movement in the Philippines.

On the other hand, Scalzo was a special agent of the US Drugs Enforcement Agency. He conducts
surveillance operations on suspected drug dealers in the Philippines, believed to be the source of
prohibited drugs shipped to the US and make the actual arrest.

May 1986 - violation of Sec. 4 of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act 0f 1972) was filed against
Khosrow Minucher and Abbas Torabian with the RTC Pasig after conducting a buy-bust operation
seizing a quantity of heroin.
January 8, 1988 - Judge Migrino acquitted Minucher and Torabian.
August 3, 1988 Minucher filed a civil case before RTC Manila for damages of charges of drug
trafficking set up by Arthur Scalzo. (Read the Minucher v. CA 1992 digest)
o After warrantless arrest, Torabian and Minucher were detained at Camp Crame for three days
without food and water.
o The arrest as a heroin trafficker had been publicized through out the world.
o Some of his properties were also missing (e.g Persian Carpets, painting, TV, and betamax
sets).
October 27, 1988, Scalzo filed a special appearance to quash the summons on the ground that he
was not a resident of the Philippines and the action being one in personam, was beyond the processes
of the court.
December 13 1988, motion was DENIED by the court holding that when Scalzo filed of a motion for
extension of time to file an answer to the complaint was considered a voluntary appearance
equivalent to service of summons which can be construed a waiver of the requirement for formal
notice.
Scalzo filed a MR, he contended that motion for time extension was not a voluntary appearance. He
argued that in cases involving US government, time extension was unavoidable. MR DENIED
Scalzo filed a petition for review with Court of Appeals. CA DENIED petition affirmed ruling of
trial court.
Scalzo elevated incident in a petition for review on certiorari but was DENIED due to Scalzos
failure to show error in CAs judgment.
June 14 1990, Scalzo file a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that he was entitled to
diplomatic immunity for being a DEA special agent. Trial court DENIED motion to dismiss.
July 27, 1990 filed a petition for certiorari with injunction in SC, asking that the civil case filed by
Minucher be dismissed. Case was referred to CA.
October 31, 1990, CA promulgated its decision sustaining diplomatic immunity of Scalzo and
ordering dismissal of complaint against him.
Minucher file a petition for review with this court.

!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!

September 24, 1992, the SC (decided by Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.) reversed decision of CA and
remanded the case to lower court for trial. SC ruled that CA erred in granting motion to dismiss of
Scalzo for lack of jurisdiction without even considering authenticity of Diplomatic Note No. 414,
and that the complaint contained sufficient allegations to the effect that Scalzo committed the
imputed acts in his personal capacity and outside scope of duty, thus diplomatic immunity could not
be taken up.
November 17, 1995, trial court ruled that Scalzo should be held accountable for the acts complained
that were committed outside his official duties.
CA reversed this decision and sustained that Scalzo was clothed with diplomatic immunity pursuant
to the terms of Vienna Convention.

Issue/s:
WON Arthur Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity conforming with Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Holding: YES.
The Convention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic missions to include (a) ambassadors or nuncios
accredited to the heads of state, (b) envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to the heads of states; and (c) charges
d' affairs accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs. Comprising the "staff of the (diplomatic) mission" are the
diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the technical and service staff. Only the heads of missions, as well as
members of the diplomatic staff, excluding the members of the administrative, technical and service staff of the
mission, are accorded diplomatic rank and are vested with diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits. Even
while the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides for immunity to the members of diplomatic missions,
it does so, nevertheless, with an understanding that the same be restrictively applied. On the other hand, consuls are
not entitled to this immunity, as they are not charged with the duty of representing their states in political matters.
Rather, consuls represent their states in concerns in commerce and navigation. Scalzo was an Assistant Attach of
the US diplomatic mission. An attach belongs to a category of officers in the diplomatic establishment who
may be in charge of its cultural, press, administrative or financial affairs.
Concededly, vesting a person with diplomatic immunity is a prerogative of the executive branch of the
government. The government of the United States itself, which Scalzo claims to be acting for, has formulated its
standards for recognition of a diplomatic agent. The State Department policy is to only concede diplomatic status to a
person who possesses an acknowledged diplomatic title and "performs duties of diplomatic nature." Supplementary
criteria for accreditation are the possession of a valid diplomatic passport or, from States which do not issue such
passports, a diplomatic note formally representing the intention to assign the person to diplomatic duties, the holding
of a non-immigrant visa, being over twenty-one years of age, and performing diplomatic functions on an essentially
full-time basis. Diplomatic missions are requested to provide the most accurate and descriptive job title to that which
currently applies to the duties performed. The Office of the Protocol would then assign each individual to the
appropriate functional category. Scalzo worked for DEA and was tasked to conduct surveillance of suspected
drug activities within the country on the dates pertinent to this case. It should be ascertained that he was acting
with in his assigned functions when he committed the acts alleged in the complaint,
Dispositive: Petition is DENIED, no costs.
Notes:
Art. 14 NCC Penal Laws & those public security & safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the
Philippines, subject to principles of public international law & treaty stipulations.
Exemption under International Law Foreigners may be exempted from Philippine laws..
1.) when the offense is committed by a foreign sovereign
2.) when offense is committed by a diplomat
3.) when offense is committed in a public or armed vessel of a foreign countr