Case Summary (G.R. No. 198356)
Key Dates
- Alleged defamation: 1994
- MTC dismissal: 1994 (shortly after arrest)
- RTC decision reinstating warrant: prior to January 2000
- Supreme Court decision: January 28, 2000
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution
- Section 45(a) of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the ADB regarding its headquarters
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Section 31(1)(c)
- Rule 112, Section 1, Rules of Criminal Procedure
Immunity Determination and Due Process Violation
The Supreme Court held that a DFA protocol characterizing petitioner as immune is merely preliminary and not binding on the judiciary. By dismissing the cases ex parte—without giving the prosecution notice or an opportunity to present evidence—the MTC violated the prosecution’s right to due process. Both sides must be heard before immunity claims are resolved.
Scope of ADB Headquarters Agreement Immunity
Section 45(a) grants immunity from legal process only for acts “performed in their official capacity,” subject to waiver by the Bank. Immunity is not absolute. Whether petitioner’s alleged defamatory utterances fall within his official functions must be determined on a factual, evidentiary basis. The prosecution must be allowed to rebut the DFA’s claim and present controverting proof.
Defamation Excluded from Official Acts
Philippine law does not recognize the commission of criminal defamation as an act of official duty. Public officials and international staff may be held personally liable for wrongful acts—such as slander—committed with malice, in bad faith, or beyond the scope of their authority. Hence, the alleged defamation cannot be shielded by the immunity clause.
Diplomatic Immunity under the Vienna Convention
Even if petitioner were deemed a diplomatic agent, the Vienna Convention provides immunity from criminal jurisdiction only for acts within official functions. Professional or commercial activities—and certainly defamatory or criminal conduct—fall outside that scope and are not covered by diplomatic immunity.
Preliminary Investigation Not Required in MTC Cases
Preliminary investigation is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional mandate, and does not apply to offenses cognizable by
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 198356)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner is an economist employed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
- In 1994, petitioner was accused of uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal.
- Two criminal complaints for grave oral defamation were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 53170 and 53171.
- The MeTC issued an arrest warrant, fixed bail at ₱2,400.00 per charge, and released petitioner to the custody of the ADB Security Officer.
MeTC’s Ex Parte Dismissal
- The day after petitioner’s release, the MeTC judge received an “office of protocol” communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
- The DFA communication stated that petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government.
- Relying solely on the DFA’s advice and without notifying the prosecution, the MeTC judge dismissed both criminal cases.
Prosecution’s Attempts to Reinstate Charges
- The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the MeTC’s dismissal; the DFA opposed the motion.
- Upon denial of reconsideration, the prosecution petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for certiorari and mandamus.
- The RTC granted the petition, set aside the MeTC dismissals, and ordered enforcement of the