3 - Liang v. People, G.R. No. 125865, January 28, 2000

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/26

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

27 Terms

1
New cards

Ponente & DV

Justice Ynares-Santiago, First Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

2
New cards

Case Number

G.R. No. 125865

3
New cards

Date

January 28, 2000

4
New cards

Jeffrey Liang is an economist with the…

Asian Development Bank

5
New cards

The petitioner was charged with two counts of grave oral defamation against a fellow ADB worker…

Joyce Cabal

6
New cards

The charges were initially docketed under the…

Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City

7
New cards

True or False: The petitioner was released into the custody of the ADB’s Security Officer.

True

8
New cards

The DFA said the petitioner was covered by _ immunity from legal process.

Diplomatic

9
New cards

The petitioner was covered by immunity under _ of the ADB Headquarters Agreement.

Section 45

10
New cards

The MeTC judge dismissed the two criminal cases, relying solely on the _.

ex-parte communication

11
New cards

Yes or No: Did the MeTC judge notify the prosecution when dismissing the two criminal cases?

No

12
New cards

The petitioner petitioned the RTC of _.

Pasig City

13
New cards

The petitioner petitioned a _ and a _.

certiorari and mandamus

14
New cards

True or False: The MeTC dismissed the criminal casesof motu proprio, but denied the Prosecutor’s Motion for Reconsideration of dismissal.

True

15
New cards

True or False: The RTC of Pasig denied the prosecution’s petition for certiorari and mandamus, but granted Liang’s Motion for Reconsideration of RTC’s ruling.

False

16
New cards

Petitioner’s argument

He is immune from legal process under Section 45, and the defamatory remarks were under his official duties.

17
New cards

Respondent’s argument

The act of defamation was a personal act, and immunity only applies to acts done in official capacity.

18
New cards

True or False: No preliminary investigation was required under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, since the case falls under the jurisdiction of the MeTC.

True

19
New cards

Issues

Whether the ex-parte communication is sufficient to dismiss criminal charges, and if the immunity is applicable to acts alleged such as defamation.

20
New cards

Ruling

No, due process is required, immunity is only with acts performd within official capacity (unlike defamation), and the MeTC has jurisdiction.

21
New cards

Supreme Court’s ruling

The petition is denied

22
New cards

Diplomatic immunity

protects diplomats from criminal jurisdiction to allow them to perform official duties without fear of prosecution, defamation not included.

23
New cards

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

limits immunity to acts within official functions and excludes criminal liability for professional or commercial activities outside those duties

24
New cards

Certiorari

A legal remedy used to ask a higher court to review a decision of a lower court.

25
New cards

Mandamus

A legal remedy used to compel an agency or a lower court to perform a duty required by law when it unlawfully refuses to do so.

26
New cards

Motu proprio

The court did something on its own, without being asked by either party in the case.

27
New cards

Ex parte communication

Any legal communication about the case between one party and the judge without the knowledge of the other party