FIRST DIVISION
[G.R.
No. 125865. March 26, 2001]
JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This resolves petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration of our Decision dated January 28, 2000, denying the
petition for review.
The Motion is anchored on the
following arguments:
1) THE DFA’S DETERMINATION OF IMMUNITY IS A POLITICAL QUESTION TO BE MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT AND IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS.
2) THE IMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IS ABSOLUTE.
3) THE IMMUNITY EXTENDS TO ALL STAFF OF THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB).
4) DUE PROCESS WAS FULLY AFFORDED THE COMPLAINANT TO REBUT THE DFA PROTOCOL.
5) THE DECISION OF JANUARY 28, 2000 ERRONEOUSLY MADE A FINDING OF FACT ON THE MERITS, NAMELY, THE SLANDERING OF A PERSON WHICH PREJUDGED PETITIONER’S CASE BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (MTC)-MANDALUYONG.
6) THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.
This case has its origin in two
criminal Informations[1] for grave oral defamation filed against petitioner, a
Chinese national who was employed as an Economist by the Asian Development Bank
(ADB), alleging that on separate occasions on January 28 and January 31, 1994,
petitioner allegedly uttered defamatory words to Joyce V. Cabal, a member of
the clerical staff of ADB. On April 13,
1994, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, 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 a petition for certiorari and mandamus
filed by the People, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160,
annulled and set aside the order of the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissing the
criminal cases.[2]
Petitioner, thus, brought a
petition for review with this Court. On
January 28, 2000, we rendered the assailed Decision denying the petition for
review. We ruled, in essence, that the
immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB is not absolute; it is
limited to acts performed in an official capacity. Furthermore, we held that the immunity cannot cover the
commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of
official duty.
On October 18, 2000, the oral
arguments of the parties were heard.
This Court also granted the Motion for Intervention of the Department of
Foreign Affairs. Thereafter, the
parties were directed to submit their respective memorandum.
For the most part, petitioner’s
Motion for Reconsideration deals with the diplomatic immunity of the ADB, its
officials and staff, from legal and judicial processes in the Philippines, as
well as the constitutional and political bases thereof. It should be made clear that nowhere in the
assailed Decision is diplomatic immunity denied, even remotely. The issue in this case, rather, boils down
to whether or not the statements allegedly made by petitioner were uttered
while in the performance of his official functions, in order for this case to
fall squarely under the provisions of Section 45 (a) of the “Agreement Between
the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank,” to wit:
Officers ands staff of the Bank, including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
(a) Immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity.
After a careful deliberation of
the arguments raised in petitioner’s and intervenor’s Motions for
Reconsideration, we find no cogent reason to disturb our Decision of January
28, 2000. As we have stated therein,
the slander of a person, by any stretch, cannot be considered as falling within
the purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and personnel. Petitioner argues that the Decision had the
effect of prejudging the criminal case for oral defamation against him. We wish to stress that it did not. What we merely stated therein is that
slander, in general, cannot be considered as an act performed in an official
capacity. The issue of whether or not
petitioner’s utterances constituted oral defamation is still for the trial court
to determine.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motions for
Reconsideration filed by petitioner and intervenor Department of Foreign
Affairs are DENIED with FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), join the concurring opinion of Mr.
Justice Puno.
Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., Pls. See concurring opinion.