Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    Proprio Dismissing The Two Criminal Cases Without Notice To The Prosecution, The

    Uploaded by

    CJ Hernandez
    1) Petitioner Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation against a fellow ADB worker. 2) The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that Liang had immunity under the agreement between the ADB and the Philippine government. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court could not blindly accept the DFA's determination of immunity and violated the prosecution's right to due process by dismissing without notice. The court must determine if Liang's actions were in an official capacity as outlined in the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Proprio Dismissing The Two Criminal Cases Without Notice To The Prosecution, The

    Uploaded by

    CJ Hernandez
    37 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation against a fellow ADB worker. 2) The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that Liang had immunity under the agreement between the ADB and the Philippine government. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court could not blindly accept the DFA's determination of immunity and violated the prosecution's right to due process by dismissing without notice. The court must determine if Liang's actions were in an official capacity as outlined in the agreement.

    Original Description:

    jbljnlkmhgcjvkh

    Original Title

    kjbljnlk

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation against a fellow ADB worker. 2) The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that Liang had immunity under the agreement between the ADB and the Philippine government. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court could not blindly accept the DFA's determination of immunity and violated the prosecution's right to due process by dismissing without notice. The court must determine if Liang's actions were in an official capacity as outlined in the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views2 pages

    Proprio Dismissing The Two Criminal Cases Without Notice To The Prosecution, The

    Uploaded by

    CJ Hernandez
    1) Petitioner Liang, an economist with the Asian Development Bank, was charged with two counts of oral defamation against a fellow ADB worker. 2) The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the charges based on a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that Liang had immunity under the agreement between the ADB and the Philippine government. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court could not blindly accept the DFA's determination of immunity and violated the prosecution's right to due process by dismissing without notice. The court must determine if Liang's actions were in an official capacity as outlined in the agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Liang vs People

    Facts:
    Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
    Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB
    worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
    Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation docketed as Criminal
    Cases Nos. 53170 and 53171. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued
    by the MeTC. After fixing petitioners bail at P2,400.00 per criminal charge, the MeTC
    released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC
    judge received an "office of protocol" from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
    stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45
    of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the
    Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based on the said
    protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without
    notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases. The latter filed a motion
    for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. 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. After the motion for
    reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the case to this Court via a petition
    for review arguing 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:
    Whether or not the petitioners case is covered with immunity from legal process
    with regard to Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine
    Govt.
    Held:
    No. Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the
    DFA that petitioner is covered by any immunity. The DFAs determination that a
    certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding
    effect in courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFAs advice and in motu
    proprio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution, the
    latters right to due process was violated. It should be noted that due process is a
    right of the accused as much as it is of the prosecution. The needed inquiry in what
    capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged utterances requires for its
    resolution evidentiary basis that has yet to be presented at the proper time. At any
    rate, it has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does
    not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges.
    Also, the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception
    that the act was done in "official capacity." It is therefore necessary to determine if
    petitioners case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should

    have been given the chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the
    opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so desire.

    You might also like