[G.R. No. 125865.

January 28, 2000]

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

He was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong with two (2) counts of Grave Oral Defamation, for
allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal. By virtue of warrant, he was
arrested.

After fixing petitioners bail at P2,400.00 per criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody of the
Security Officer of ADB.

MeTC judge then 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 ADB and Philippine Government.
Thereafter, MeTC judge, w/o notice, dismissed the two criminal cases.

When its motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the
warrant of arrest it earlier issued.

Petitioner filed an MR but the same was denied.

Hence, the present case.

PETITIONER: argues that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary
investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.

ISSUE:

WON petitioner is covered by the immunity under the agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held
before the criminal charges were filed in court.

HELD: NO.

ON THE ISSUE OF IMMUNITY

Section 45 of the Agreement provides:

"Officers and 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."

the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the act was done in
"official capacity."

Petitioner is not covered by the immunity because the commission of a crime is part of the performance of
official duty. Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from DFA that a certain
person is covered by immunity. That a person is covered by immunity is preliminary. Due Process is right of
the accused as much as the prosecution.
 Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our
laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.[3]

It is 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.[4]

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such,
enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action
relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the
receiving state outside his official functions.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of
a crime is not part of official duty.

ON THE ISSUE THAT THERE WAS NO P.I CONDUCTED

On the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary
investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at bar. [6]
Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only when specifically granted by
law.[7]

The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in cases falling within
the jurisdiction of the MeTC.[8]

Besides, the absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts jurisdiction nor does it impair
the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. [9]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.