JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs.

, People of the Philippines, respondent

G.R. No. 125865
March 26, 2001

FACTS:

Two criminal informations for oral defamation was filed against the petitioner, a Chinese
national who was employed as an Economist by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), alleging
that on separate occasions the petitioner allegedly uttered defamatory words to a member of the
clerical staff of ADB. The MTC, acting pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign
Affairs that petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal processes, dismissed the criminal
informations against him. On petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the People, the RTC
annulled and set aside the order of the MTC. A petition for review was then filed with the SC,
wherein it denied the said petition stating that the immunity granted to officers and staff of the
ADB is not absolute and is limited to acts in an official capacity. It held that the immunity cannot
cover the commission of a crime such as slander of oral defamation in the name of official duty.
Thereafter, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not grave oral defamation falls under the purview of the immunity granted to ADB
officers and personnel.

HELD:

No. As already stated by the Court in its earlier Decision, slander of a person, by any stretch,
cannot be considered as falling within the purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and
personnel. Slander, in general, cannot be considered as an act performed in an official capacity.
The issue of whether or not petitioners utterances constituted oral defamation is still for the trial
court to determine.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES (FROM THE CONCURRING OPINIONS)

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner Liang, as an official of an international organization, is entitled to

diplomatic immunity.
2. Whether an international official is immune from criminal jurisdiction for all acts,
whether private or official.
3. Whether the certification by the DFA that petitioner is covered by immunity is a political
question that is binding and conclusive on the courts.

HELD:

1. No, the petitioner, a bank official of ADB, is not entitled to diplomatic immunity and
hence his immunity is not absolute. The ADB Charter abd Headquarters Agreement
explicitly grant immunity from legal processes to bank officers and employees only with
respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity, except when the Bank waives
immunity. In other words, officials and employees of ADB are subject to the jurisdiction
of the local courts for their private acts, notwithstanding the absence of a waiver of
immunity.
2. No. The international officials immunity for official acts may be likened to a consular
officials immunity from arrest, detention, and criminal or civil process which is not
absolute but applies only to acts or omissions in the performance of his official functions,
in the absence of special agreement. But the determination as to whether an act is
considered private or official, the prevalent notion is that it is the local courts that have
such jurisdiction, and such determination is not necessarily final.
3. No. It is not within the power of the DFA, as the agency in charge of the executive
departments foreign realtions, nor the ADB, as the international organization vested with
the right to waive, to invoke immunity for private acts of bank officials and employees,
since no such prerogative exists in the first place. If immunity does not exist, there is
nothing to certify.