Scribd
Upload
280 views1 page

Jeffrey Lang People of The Philippines

1) Jeffrey Lang was charged with defamation for comments made against a coworker at the Asian Development Bank (ADB) where he worked. 2) Lang claimed immunity from prosecution under an agreement between the ADB and the Philippines. However, the Supreme Court ruled that immunity does not cover criminal acts, like defamation, committed outside an individual's official capacity. 3) The Court also found that a preliminary investigation was not required since the case was under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. The petition for review was denied.

Uploaded by

Mary Ann Ambita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
280 views1 page

Jeffrey Lang People of The Philippines

1) Jeffrey Lang was charged with defamation for comments made against a coworker at the Asian Development Bank (ADB) where he worked. 2) Lang claimed immunity from prosecution under an agreement between the ADB and the Philippines. However, the Supreme Court ruled that immunity does not cover criminal acts, like defamation, committed outside an individual's official capacity. 3) The Court also found that a preliminary investigation was not required since the case was under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. The petition for review was denied.

Uploaded by

Mary Ann Ambita
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Liang

v. People
G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000
PETITIONER Jeffrey Lang
RESPONDENT People of the Philippines
Ynares-Santiago, J. Topic: Immunity is not absolute – cannot cover the commission of a crime

FACTS
• In 1994, Lang was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Mandaluyong City
with two counts of grave oral defamation (docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 53170 and 53171,
for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal.
• Petitioner Lang was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MTC.
• He posted bail at P2,400 per criminal charge, then the MTC released him to the custody of
ADB’s Security Officer.
• The MTC judge received an “office of protocol” from the DFA stating that the petitioner is
covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the
ADB and the PH government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in the country.
• Based on the protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, MTC dismissed
the two criminal cases against Liang
• Upon a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the Respondent, the RTC of Pasig
annulled and set aside the order of MTC.
• Petitioner brought a petition for review with the SC and the SC denied the petition for review
on January 28, 2000.
• Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not respondent enjoys immunity from legal processes under Section 45 of the
ADB-PH Agreement
2. Whether or not the conduct of preliminary investigation was imperative

HELD
1. No. The Court 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.
a. The mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping
of the charges.
b. Immunity cannot cover the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation
in the name of official duty.
2. No, preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MTC such as
this case. Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked onlny
when specifically granted by law. The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary
investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MTC.

RULING Petition DENIED with FINALITY.

PRINCIPLES
• Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming that
the 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. The commission of a
crime is not part of official duty.

You might also like