This is a two full case of Minucher vs CA and Jeffrey Liang vs People of the Phillippines. First Assign cases for Criminal Law. Both discuss the application of state immunity.
This is a two full case of Minucher vs CA and Jeffrey Liang vs People of the Phillippines. First Assign cases for Criminal Law. Both discuss the application of state immunity.
This is a two full case of Minucher vs CA and Jeffrey Liang vs People of the Phillippines. First Assign cases for Criminal Law. Both discuss the application of state immunity.
JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. E!LE !F "HE HILIINE#, respondent. R E # ! L U " I ! N YNARE#$#AN"IAG!, J.% This resolves petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision dated January 2! 2"""! denyin# the petition for revie$% The Motion is anchored on the follo$in# ar#u&ents' () T*+ DF,S D+T+RMIN,TION OF IMM-NIT. IS , /O0ITI1,0 2-+STION TO 3+ M,D+ 3. T*+ +4+1-TIV+ 3R,N1* OF T*+ 5OV+RNM+NT ,ND IS 1ON10-SIV+ -/ON T*+ 1O-RTS% 2) T*+ IMM-NIT. OF INT+RN,TION,0 OR5,NI6,TIONS IS ,3SO0-T+% 7) T*+ IMM-NIT. +4T+NDS TO ,00 ST,FF OF T*+ ,SI,N D+V+0O/M+NT 3,N8 9,D3)% :) D-+ /RO1+SS ;,S F-00. ,FFORD+D T*+ 1OM/0,IN,NT TO R+3-T T*+ DF, /ROTO1O0% <) T*+ D+1ISION OF J,N-,R. 2! 2""" +RRON+O-S0. M,D+ , FINDIN5 OF F,1T ON T*+ M+RITS! N,M+0.! T*+ S0,ND+RIN5 OF , /+RSON ;*I1* /R+J-D5+D /+TITION+RS 1,S+ 3+FOR+ T*+ M+TRO/O0IT,N TRI,0 1O-RT 9MT1)= M,ND,0-.ON5% >) T*+ VI+NN, 1ONV+NTION ON DI/0OM,TI1 R+0,TIONS IS NOT ,//0I1,30+ TO T*IS 1,S+% This case has its ori#in in t$o cri&inal Infor&ations ?(@ for #rave oral defa&ation filed a#ainst petitioner! a 1hinese national $ho $as e&ployed as an +cono&ist Ay the ,sian Develop&ent 3anB 9,D3)! alle#in# that on separate occasions on January 2 and January 7(! (CC:! petitioner alle#edly uttered defa&atory $ords to Joyce V% 1aAal! a &e&Aer of the clerical staff of ,D3% On ,pril (7! (CC:! the Metropolitan Trial 1ourt of Mandaluyon# 1ity! actin# pursuant to an advice fro& the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs that petitioner enDoyed i&&unity fro& le#al processes! dis&issed the cri&inal Infor&ations a#ainst hi&% On a petition for certiorari and &anda&us filed Ay the /eople! the Re#ional Trial 1ourt of /asi# 1ity! 3ranch (>"! annulled and set aside the order of the Metropolitan Trial 1ourt dis&issin# the cri&inal cases% ?2@ /etitioner! thus! Arou#ht a petition for revie$ $ith this 1ourt% On January 2! 2"""! $e rendered the assailed Decision denyin# the petition for revie$% ;e ruled! in essence! that the i&&unity #ranted to officers and staff of the ,D3 is not aAsoluteE it is li&ited to acts perfor&ed in an official capacity% Further&ore! $e held that the i&&unity cannot cover the co&&ission of a cri&e such as slander or oral defa&ation in the na&e of official duty% On OctoAer (! 2"""! the oral ar#u&ents of the parties $ere heard% This 1ourt also #ranted the Motion for Intervention of the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs% Thereafter! the parties $ere directed to suA&it their respective &e&orandu&% For the &ost part! petitioners Motion for Reconsideration deals $ith the diplo&atic i&&unity of the ,D3! its officials and staff! fro& le#al and Dudicial processes in the /hilippines! as $ell as the constitutional and political Aases thereof% It should Ae &ade clear that no$here in the assailed Decision is diplo&atic i&&unity denied! even re&otely% The issue in this case! rather! Aoils do$n to $hether or not the state&ents alle#edly &ade Ay petitioner $ere uttered $hile in the perfor&ance of his official functions! in order for this case to fall sFuarely under the provisions of Section :< 9a) of the G,#ree&ent 3et$een the ,sian Develop&ent 3anB and the 5overn&ent of the RepuAlic of the /hilippines Re#ardin# the *eadFuarters of the ,sian Develop&ent 3anB!H to $it' Officers ands staff of the 3anB! includin# for the purpose of this ,rticle eIperts and consultants perfor&in# &issions for the 3anB! shall enDoy the follo$in# privile#es and i&&unities' 9a) I&&unity fro& le#al process $ith respect to acts perfor&ed Ay the& in their official capacity eIcept $hen the 3anB $aives the i&&unity% ,fter a careful deliAeration of the ar#u&ents raised in petitioners and intervenors Motions for Reconsideration! $e find no co#ent reason to disturA our Decision of January 2! 2"""% ,s $e have stated therein! the slander of a person! Ay any stretch! cannot Ae considered as fallin# $ithin the purvie$ of the i&&unity #ranted to ,D3 officers and personnel% /etitioner ar#ues that the Decision had the effect of preDud#in# the cri&inal case for oral defa&ation a#ainst hi&% ;e $ish to stress that it did not% ;hat $e &erely stated therein is that slander! in #eneral! cannot Ae considered as an act perfor&ed in an official capacity% The issue of $hether or not petitioners utterances constituted oral defa&ation is still for the trial court to deter&ine% &HEREF!RE! in vie$ of the fore#oin#! the Motions for Reconsideration filed Ay petitioner and intervenor Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs are D+NI+D $ith FIN,0IT.% #! !R'ERE'. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Doin the concurrin# opinion of Mr% Justice /uno% Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur% Puno, J., /ls% See concurrin# opinion% ?(@ 1ri&inal 1ases Nos% <7(J" K <7(J( of the Metropolitan Trial 1ourt of Mandaluyon# 1ity! 3ranch >"! presided Ay *on% Ma% 0uisa 2uiDano= /adilla% ?2@ S1, 1ase No% J:7 of the Re#ional Trial 1ourt of /asi# 1ity! 3ranch (>"! presided Ay *on% Mariano M% -&ali% RepuAlic of the /hilippines #UREME (!UR" Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 1)2*+6 F,-r.ar/ 11, 200* 0H!#R!& MINU(HER, petitioner! vs% H!N. (!UR" !F AEAL# a12 AR"HUR #(AL3!, respondents% D + 1 I S I O N 4I"UG, J.: So&eti&e in May (C>! an Infor&ation for violation of Section : of RepuAlic ,ct No% >:2<! other$ise also Bno$n as the LDan#erous Dru#s ,ct of (CJ2!L $as filed a#ainst petitioner 8hosro$ Minucher and one ,AAas ToraAian $ith the Re#ional Trial 1ourt! 3ranch (<(! of /asi# 1ity% The cri&inal char#e follo$ed a LAuy=Aust operationL conducted Ay the /hilippine police narcotic a#ents in the house of Minucher! an Iranian national! $here a Fuantity of heroin! a prohiAited dru#! $as said to have Aeen seiMed% The narcotic a#ents $ere acco&panied Ay private respondent ,rthur ScalMo $ho $ould! in due ti&e! Aeco&e one of the principal $itnesses for the prosecution% On " January (C! /residin# Jud#e +utropio Mi#rino rendered a decision acFuittin# the t$o accused% On "7 ,u#ust (C! Minucher filed 1ivil 1ase No% =:<>C( Aefore the Re#ional Trial 1ourt 9RT1)! 3ranch (C! of Manila for da&a#es on account of $hat he clai&ed to have Aeen tru&ped=up char#es of dru# trafficBin# &ade Ay ,rthur ScalMo% The Manila RT1 detailed $hat it had found to Ae the facts and circu&stances surroundin# the case% LThe testi&ony of the plaintiff disclosed that he is an Iranian national% *e ca&e to the /hilippines to study in the -niversity of the /hilippines in (CJ:% In (CJ>! under the re#i&e of the Shah of Iran! he $as appointed 0aAor ,ttachN for the Iranian +&Aassies in ToByo! Japan and Manila! /hilippines% ;hen the Shah of Iran $as deposed Ay ,yatollah 8ho&eini! plaintiff Aeca&e a refu#ee of the -nited Nations and continued to stay in the /hilippines% *e headed the Iranian National Resistance Move&ent in the /hilippines% L*e ca&e to Bno$ the defendant on May (7! (C>! $hen the latter $as Arou#ht to his house and introduced to hi& Ay a certain Jose IOi#o! an infor&er of the Intelli#ence -nit of the &ilitary% Jose IOi#o! on the other hand! $as &et Ay plaintiff at the office of ,tty% 1risanto Saruca! a la$yer for several Iranians $ho& plaintiff assisted as head of the anti=8ho&eini &ove&ent in the /hilippines% LDurin# his first &eetin# $ith the defendant on May (7! (C>! upon the introduction of Jose IOi#o! the defendant eIpressed his interest in Auyin# caviar% ,s a &atter of fact! he Aou#ht t$o Bilos of caviar fro& plaintiff and paid /("!"""%"" for it% Sellin# caviar! aside fro& that of /ersian carpets! pistachio nuts and other Iranian products $as his Ausiness after the 8ho&eini #overn&ent cut his pension of over P7!"""%"" per &onth% Durin# their introduction in that &eetin#! the defendant #ave the plaintiff his callin# card! $hich sho$ed that he is $orBin# at the -S +&Aassy in the /hilippines! as a special a#ent of the Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration! Depart&ent of Justice! of the -nited States! and #ave his address as -S +&Aassy! Manila% ,t the AacB of the card appears a telephone nu&Aer in defendants o$n hand$ritin#! the nu&Aer of $hich he can also Ae contacted% LIt $as also durin# this first &eetin# that plaintiff eIpressed his desire to oAtain a -S Visa for his $ife and the $ife of a country&an na&ed ,AAas ToraAian% The defendant told hi& that he ?could@ help plaintiff for a fee of P2!"""%"" per visa% Their conversation! ho$ever! $as &ore concentrated on politics! carpets and caviar% Thereafter! the defendant pro&ised to see plaintiff a#ain% LOn May (C! (C>! the defendant called the plaintiff and invited the latter for dinner at MarioQs Restaurant at MaBati% *e $anted to Auy 2"" #ra&s of caviar% /laintiff Arou#ht the &erchandiMe Aut for the reason that the defendant $as not yet there! he reFuested the restaurant people to I I I place the sa&e in the refri#erator% Defendant! ho$ever! ca&e and plaintiff #ave hi& the caviar for $hich he $as paid% Then their conversation $as a#ain focused on politics and Ausiness% LOn May 2>! (C>! defendant visited plaintiff a#ain at the latterQs residence for ( years at 8apitolyo! /asi#% The defendant $anted to Auy a pair of carpets $hich plaintiff valued at P2J!C""%""% ,fter so&e ha##lin#! they a#reed at P2:!"""%""% For the reason that defendant did not yet have the &oney! they a#reed that defendant $ould co&e AacB the neIt day% The follo$in# day! at ('"" p%&%! he ca&e AacB $ith his P2:!"""%""! $hich he #ave to the plaintiff! and the latter! in turn! #ave hi& the pair of carpets%1awphi1.nt L,t aAout 7'"" in the afternoon of May 2J! (C>! the defendant ca&e AacB a#ain to plaintiffQs house and directly proceeded to the latterQs Aedroo&! $here the latter and his country&an! ,AAas ToraAian! $ere playin# chess% /laintiff opened his safe in the Aedroo& and oAtained P2!"""%"" fro& it! #ave it to the defendant for the latterQs fee in oAtainin# a visa for plaintiffQs $ife% The defendant told hi& that he $ould Ae leavin# the /hilippines very soon and reFuested hi& to co&e out of the house for a $hile so that he can introduce hi& to his cousin $aitin# in a caA% ;ithout &uch ado! and $ithout puttin# on his shirt as he $as only in his paDa&a pants! he follo$ed the defendant $here he sa$ a parBed caA opposite the street% To his co&plete surprise! an ,&erican Du&ped out of the caA $ith a dra$n hi#h=po$ered #un% *e $as in the co&pany of aAout 7" to :" Filipino soldiers $ith > ,&ericans! all ar&ed% *e $as handcuffed and after aAout 2" &inutes in the street! he $as Arou#ht inside the house Ay the defendant% *e $as &ade to sit do$n $hile in handcuffs $hile the defendant $as inside his Aedroo&% The defendant ca&e out of the Aedroo& and out fro& defendantQs attachN case! he tooB soðin# and placed it on the taAle in front of the plaintiff% They also tooB plaintiffQs $ife $ho $as at that ti&e at the AoutiFue near his house and liBe$ise arrested ToraAian! $ho $as playin# chess $ith hi& in the Aedroo& and Aoth $ere handcuffed to#ether% /laintiff $as not told $hy he $as Aein# handcuffed and $hy the privacy of his house! especially his Aedroo& $as invaded Ay defendant% *e $as not allo$ed to use the telephone% In fact! his telephone $as unplu##ed% *e asBed for any $arrant! Aut the defendant told hi& to Rshut up% *e $as nevertheless told that he $ould Ae aAle to call for his la$yer $ho can defend hi&% LThe plaintiff tooB note of the fact that $hen the defendant invited hi& to co&e out to &eet his cousin! his safe $as opened $here he Bept the P2:!"""%"" the defendant paid for the carpets and another P!"""%"" $hich he also placed in the safe to#ether $ith a Aracelet $orth P(<!"""%"" and a pair of earrin#s $orth P("!"""%""% *e also discovered &issin# upon his release his pieces hand=&ade /ersian carpets! valued at P><!"""%""! a paintin# he Aou#ht for /7"!"""%"" to#ether $ith his TV and Aeta&aI sets% *e clai&ed that $hen he $as handcuffed! the defendant tooB his Beys fro& his $allet% There $as! therefore! nothin# left in his house% LThat his arrest as a heroin trafficBer I I I had Aeen $ell puAliciMed throu#hout the $orld! in various ne$spapers! particularly in ,ustralia! ,&erica! 1entral ,sia and in the /hilippines% *e $as identified in the papers as an international dru# trafficBer% I I I In fact! the arrest of defendant and ToraAian $as liBe$ise on television! not only in the /hilippines! Aut also in ,&erica and in 5er&any% *is friends in said places infor&ed hi& that they sa$ hi& on TV $ith said ne$s% L,fter the arrest &ade on plaintiff and ToraAian! they $ere Arou#ht to 1a&p 1ra&e handcuffed to#ether! $here they $ere detained for three days $ithout food and $ater%L ( Durin# the trial! the la$ fir& of 0una! Sison and Manas! filed a special appearance for ScalMo and &oved for eItension of ti&e to file an ans$er pendin# a supposed advice fro& the -nited States Depart&ent of State and Depart&ent of Justice on the defenses to Ae raised% The trial court #ranted the &otion% On 2J OctoAer (C! ScalMo filed another special appearance to Fuash the su&&ons on the #round that he! not Aein# a resident of the /hilippines and the action Aein# one in persona&! $as Aeyond the processes of the court% The &otion $as denied Ay the court! in its order of (7 Dece&Aer (C! holdin# that the filin# Ay ScalMo of a &otion for eItension of ti&e to file an ans$er to the co&plaint $as a voluntary appearance eFuivalent to service of su&&ons $hich could liBe$ise Ae construed a $aiver of the reFuire&ent of for&al notice% ScalMo filed a &otion for reconsideration of the court order! contendin# that a &otion for an eItension of ti&e to file an ans$er $as not a voluntary appearance eFuivalent to service of su&&ons since it did not seeB an affir&ative relief% ScalMo ar#ued that in cases involvin# the -nited States #overn&ent! as $ell as its a#encies and officials! a &otion for eItension $as peculiarly unavoidaAle due to the need 9() for Aoth the Depart&ent of State and the Depart&ent of Justice to a#ree on the defenses to Ae raised and 92) to refer the case to a /hilippine la$yer $ho $ould Ae eIpected to first revie$ the case% The court a Fuo denied the &otion for reconsideration in its order of (< OctoAer (CC% ScalMo filed a petition for revie$ $ith the 1ourt of ,ppeals! there docBeted 1,=5%R% No% (J"27! assailin# the denial% In a decision! dated "> OctoAer (CC! the appellate court denied the petition and affir&ed the rulin# of the trial court% ScalMo then elevated the incident in a petition for revie$ on certiorari! docBeted 5%R% No% C((J7! to this 1ourt% The petition! ho$ever! $as denied for its failure to co&ply $ith S1 1ircular No% (=E in any event! the 1ourt added! ScalMo had failed to sho$ that the appellate court $as in error in its Fuestioned Dud#&ent% Mean$hile! at the court a Fuo! an order! dated "C FeAruary (CC"! $as issued 9a) declarin# ScalMo in default for his failure to file a responsive pleadin# 9ans$er) and 9A) settin# the case for the reception of evidence% On (2 March (CC"! ScalMo filed a &otion to set aside the order of default and to ad&it his ans$er to the co&plaint% 5rantin# the &otion! the trial court set the case for pre=trial% In his ans$er! ScalMo denied the &aterial alle#ations of the co&plaint and raised the affir&ative defenses 9a) of Minuchers failure to state a cause of action in his co&plaint and 9A) that ScalMo had acted in the dischar#e of his official duties as Aein# &erely an a#ent of the Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration of the -nited States Depart&ent of Justice% ScalMo interposed a counterclai& of /(""!"""%"" to ans$er for attorneysQ fees and eIpenses of liti#ation% Then! on (: June (CC"! after al&ost t$o years since the institution of the civil case! ScalMo filed a &otion to dis&iss the co&plaint on the #round that! Aein# a special a#ent of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration! he $as entitled to diplo&atic i&&unity% *e attached to his &otion Diplo&atic Note No% :(: of the -nited States +&Aassy! dated 2C May (CC"! addressed to the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs of the /hilippines and a 1ertification! dated (( June (CC"! of Vice 1onsul Donna ;ood$ard! certifyin# that the note is a true and faithful copy of its ori#inal% In an order of 2< June (CC"! the trial court denied the &otion to dis&iss% On 2J July (CC"! ScalMo filed a petition for certiorari $ith inDunction $ith this 1ourt! docBeted 5%R% No% C:2<J and entitled L,rthur ;% ScalMo! Jr%! vs% *on% ;enceslao /olo! et al%!L asBin# that the co&plaint in 1ivil 1ase No% =:<>C( Ae ordered dis&issed% The case $as referred to the 1ourt of ,ppeals! there docBeted 1,=5%R% S/ No% 22<"<! per this 1ourts resolution of "J ,u#ust (CC"% On 7( OctoAer (CC"! the 1ourt of ,ppeals pro&ul#ated its decision sustainin# the diplo&atic i&&unity of ScalMo and orderin# the dis&issal of the co&plaint a#ainst hi&% Minucher filed a petition for revie$ $ith this 1ourt! docBeted 5%R% No% CJJ>< and entitled L8hosro$ Minucher vs% the *onoraAle 1ourt of ,ppeals! et% al%L 9cited in 2(: S1R, 2:2)! appealin# the Dud#&ent of the 1ourt of ,ppeals% In a decision! dated 2: Septe&Aer (CC2! penned Ay Justice 9no$ 1hief Justice) *ilario Davide! Jr%! this 1ourt reversed the decision of the appellate court and re&anded the case to the lo$er court for trial% The re&and $as ordered on the theses 9a) that the 1ourt of ,ppeals erred in #rantin# the &otion to dis&iss of ScalMo for lacB of Durisdiction over his person $ithout even considerin# the issue of the authenticity of Diplo&atic Note No% :(: and 9A) that the co&plaint contained sufficient alle#ations to the effect that ScalMo co&&itted the i&puted acts in his personal capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and! aAsent any evidence to the contrary! the issue on ScalMos diplo&atic i&&unity could not Ae taBen up% The Manila RT1 thus continued $ith its hearin#s on the case% On (J Nove&Aer (CC<! the trial court reached a decisionE it adDud#ed' L;*+R+FOR+! and in vie$ of all the fore#oin# considerations! Dud#&ent is hereAy rendered for the plaintiff! $ho successfully estaAlished his clai& Ay sufficient evidence! a#ainst the defendant in the &anner follo$in#' LR,dDud#in# defendant liaAle to plaintiff in actual and co&pensatory da&a#es of /<2"!"""%""E &oral da&a#es in the su& of /(" &illionE eIe&plary da&a#es in the su& of /(""!"""%""E attorneyQs fees in the su& of /2""!"""%"" plus costs% RThe 1lerB of the Re#ional Trial 1ourt! Manila! is ordered to taBe note of the lien of the 1ourt on this Dud#&ent to ans$er for the unpaid docBet fees considerin# that the plaintiff in this case instituted this action as a pauper liti#ant%L 2 ;hile the trial court #ave credence to the clai& of ScalMo and the evidence presented Ay hi& that he $as a diplo&atic a#ent entitled to i&&unity as such! it ruled that he! nevertheless! should Ae held accountaAle for the acts co&plained of co&&itted outside his official duties% On appeal! the 1ourt of ,ppeals reversed the decision of the trial court and sustained the defense of ScalMo that he $as sufficiently clothed $ith diplo&atic i&&unity durin# his ter& of duty and thereAy i&&une fro& the cri&inal and civil Durisdiction of the LReceivin# StateL pursuant to the ter&s of the Vienna 1onvention% *ence! this recourse Ay Minucher% The instant petition for revie$ raises a t$o=fold issue' 9() $hether or not the doctrine of conclusiveness of Dud#&ent! follo$in# the decision rendered Ay this 1ourt in 5%R% No% CJJ><! should have precluded the 1ourt of ,ppeals fro& resolvin# the appeal to it in an entirely different &anner! and 92) $hether or not ,rthur ScalMo is indeed entitled to diplo&atic i&&unity% The doctrine of conclusiveness of Dud#&ent! or its Bindred rule of res Dudicata! $ould reFuire () the finality of the prior Dud#&ent! 2) a valid Durisdiction over the suADect &atter and the parties on the part of the court that renders it! 7) a Dud#&ent on the &erits! and :) an identity of the parties! suADect &atter and causes of action% 7 +ven $hile one of the issues suA&itted in 5%R% No% CJJ>< = L$hether or not puAlic respondent 1ourt of ,ppeals erred in rulin# that private respondent ScalMo is a diplo&at i&&une fro& civil suit confor&aAly $ith the Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic RelationsL = is also a pivotal Fuestion raised in the instant petition! the rulin# in 5%R% No% CJJ><! ho$ever! has not resolved that point $ith finality% Indeed! the 1ourt there has &ade this oAservation = LIt &ay Ae &entioned in this re#ard that private respondent hi&self! in his /re=trial 3rief filed on (7 June (CC"! uneFuivocally states that he $ould present docu&entary evidence consistin# of D+, records on his investi#ation and surveillance of plaintiff and on his position and duties as D+, special a#ent in Manila% *avin# thus reserved his ri#ht to present evidence in support of his position! $hich is the Aasis for the alle#ed diplo&atic i&&unity! the Aarren self=servin# clai& in the Aelated &otion to dis&iss cannot Ae relied upon for a reasonaAle! intelli#ent and fair resolution of the issue of diplo&atic i&&unity%L : ScalMo contends that the Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations! to $hich the /hilippines is a si#natory! #rants hi& aAsolute i&&unity fro& suit! descriAin# his functions as an a#ent of the -nited States Dru#s +nforce&ent ,#ency as Lconductin# surveillance operations on suspected dru# dealers in the /hilippines Aelieved to Ae the source of prohiAited dru#s Aein# shipped to the -%S%! 9and) havin# ascertained the tar#et! 9he then) $ould infor& the /hilippine narcotic a#ents 9to) &aBe the actual arrest%L ScalMo has suA&itted to the trial court a nu&Aer of docu&ents = (% +Ih% Q2Q = Diplo&atic Note No% :(: dated 2C May (CC"E 2% +Ih% Q(Q = 1ertification of Vice 1onsul Donna 8% ;ood$ard dated (( June (CC"E 7% +Ih% Q<Q = Diplo&atic Note No% J<J dated 2< OctoAer (CC(E :% +Ih% Q>Q = Diplo&atic Note No% JC( dated (J Nove&Aer (CC2E and <% +Ih% QJQ = Diplo&atic Note No% 77 dated 2( OctoAer (C% >% +Ih% Q7Q = (st Indorse&ent of the *on% Jor#e R% 1oFuia! 0e#al ,dviser! Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs! dated 2J June (CC" for$ardin# +&Aassy Note No% :(: to the 1lerB of 1ourt of RT1 Manila! 3ranch (C 9the trial court)E J% +Ih% Q:Q = Diplo&atic Note No% :(:! appended to the (st Indorse&ent 9+Ih% Q7Q)E and % +Ih% QQ = 0etter dated ( Nove&Aer (CC2 fro& the Office of the /rotocol! Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs! throu#h ,sst% Sec% +&&anuel FernandeM! addressed to the 1hief Justice of this 1ourt% < The docu&ents! accordin# to ScalMo! $ould sho$ that' 9() the -nited States +&Aassy accordin#ly advised the +Iecutive Depart&ent of the /hilippine 5overn&ent that ScalMo $as a &e&Aer of the diplo&atic staff of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission fro& his arrival in the /hilippines on (: OctoAer (C< until his departure on (" ,u#ust (CE 92) that the -nited States 5overn&ent $as fir& fro& the very Ae#innin# in assertin# the diplo&atic i&&unity of ScalMo $ith respect to the case pursuant to the provisions of the Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic RelationsE and 97) that the -nited States +&Aassy repeatedly ur#ed the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs to taBe appropriate action to infor& the trial court of ScalMos diplo&atic i&&unity% The other docu&entary eIhiAits $ere presented to indicate that' 9() the /hilippine #overn&ent itself! throu#h its +Iecutive Depart&ent! reco#niMin# and respectin# the diplo&atic status of ScalMo! for&ally advised the LJudicial Depart&entL of his diplo&atic status and his entitle&ent to all diplo&atic privile#es and i&&unities under the Vienna 1onventionE and 92) the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs itself authenticated Diplo&atic Note No% :(:% ScalMo additionally presented +IhiAits LCL to L(7L consistin# of his reports of investi#ation on the surveillance and suAseFuent arrest of Minucher! the certification of the Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration of the -nited States Depart&ent of Justice that ScalMo $as a special a#ent assi#ned to the /hilippines at all ti&es relevant to the co&plaint! and the special po$er of attorney eIecuted Ay hi& in favor of his previous counsel > to sho$ 9a) that the -nited States +&Aassy! affir&ed Ay its Vice 1onsul! acBno$led#ed ScalMo to Ae a &e&Aer of the diplo&atic staff of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission fro& his arrival in the /hilippines on (: OctoAer (C< until his departure on (" ,u#ust (C! 9A) that! on May (C>! $ith the cooperation of the /hilippine la$ enforce&ent officials and in the eIercise of his functions as &e&Aer of the &ission! he investi#ated Minucher for alle#ed trafficBin# in a prohiAited dru#! and 9c) that the /hilippine Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs itself reco#niMed that ScalMo durin# his tour of duty in the /hilippines 9(: OctoAer (C< up to (" ,u#ust (C) $as listed as Aein# an ,ssistant ,ttachN of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission and accredited $ith diplo&atic status Ay the 5overn&ent of the /hilippines% In his +IhiAit (2! ScalMo descriAed the functions of the overseas office of the -nited States Dru#s +nforce&ent ,#ency! i%e%! 9() to provide cri&inal investi#ative eIpertise and assistance to forei#n la$ enforce&ent a#encies on narcotic and dru# control pro#ra&s upon the reFuest of the host country! 2) to estaAlish and &aintain liaison $ith the host country and counterpart forei#n la$ enforce&ent officials! and 7) to conduct co&pleI cri&inal investi#ations involvin# international cri&inal conspiracies $hich affect the interests of the -nited States% The Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations $as a codification of centuries=old custo&ary la$ and! Ay the ti&e of its ratification on ( ,pril (C>(! its rules of la$ had lon# Aeco&e staAle% ,&on# the city states of ancient 5reece! a&on# the peoples of the Mediterranean Aefore the estaAlish&ent of the Ro&an +&pire! and a&on# the states of India! the person of the herald in ti&e of $ar and the person of the diplo&atic envoy in ti&e of peace $ere universally held sacrosanct% J 3y the end of the (>th century! $hen the earliest treatises on diplo&atic la$ $ere puAlished! the inviolaAility of a&Aassadors $as fir&ly estaAlished as a rule of custo&ary international la$%
Traditionally! the eIercise of
diplo&atic intercourse a&on# states $as undertaBen Ay the head of state hi&self! as Aein# the pree&inent e&Aodi&ent of the state he represented! and the forei#n secretary! the official usually entrusted $ith the eIternal affairs of the state% ;here a state $ould $ish to have a &ore pro&inent diplo&atic presence in the receivin# state! it $ould then send to the latter a diplo&atic &ission% 1onfor&aAly $ith the Vienna 1onvention! the functions of the diplo&atic &ission involve! Ay and lar#e! the representation of the interests of the sendin# state and pro&otin# friendly relations $ith the receivin# state% C The 1onvention lists the classes of heads of diplo&atic &issions to include 9a) a&Aassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state! (" 9A) envoys! (( &inisters or internuncios accredited to the heads of statesE and 9c) char#es dQ affairs (2 accredited to the &inisters of forei#n affairs% (7 1o&prisin# the Lstaff of the 9diplo&atic) &issionL are the diplo&atic staff! the ad&inistrative staff and the technical and service staff% Only the heads of &issions! as $ell as &e&Aers of the diplo&atic staff! eIcludin# the &e&Aers of the ad&inistrative! technical and service staff of the &ission! are accorded diplo&atic ranB% +ven $hile the Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations provides for i&&unity to the &e&Aers of diplo&atic &issions! it does so! nevertheless! $ith an understandin# that the sa&e Ae restrictively applied% Only Ldiplo&atic a#ents!L under the ter&s of the 1onvention! are vested $ith AlanBet diplo&atic i&&unity fro& civil and cri&inal suits% The 1onvention defines Ldiplo&atic a#entsL as the heads of &issions or &e&Aers of the diplo&atic staff! thus i&pliedly $ithholdin# the sa&e privile#es fro& all others% It &i#ht Aear stressin# that even consuls! $ho represent their respective states in concerns of co&&erce and navi#ation and perfor& certain ad&inistrative and notarial duties! such as the issuance of passports and visas! authentication of docu&ents! and ad&inistration of oaths! do not ordinarily enDoy the traditional diplo&atic i&&unities and privile#es accorded diplo&ats! &ainly for the reason that they are not char#ed $ith the duty of representin# their states in political &atters% Indeed! the &ain yardsticB in ascertainin# $hether a person is a diplo&at entitled to i&&unity is the deter&ination of $hether or not he perfor&s duties of diplo&atic nature% ScalMo asserted! particularly in his +IhiAits LCL to L(7!L that he $as an ,ssistant ,ttachN of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission and $as accredited as such Ay the /hilippine 5overn&ent% ,n attachN Aelon#s to a cate#ory of officers in the diplo&atic estaAlish&ent $ho &ay Ae in char#e of its cultural! press! ad&inistrative or financial affairs% There could also Ae a class of attaches Aelon#in# to certain &inistries or depart&ents of the #overn&ent! other than the forei#n &inistry or depart&ent! $ho are detailed Ay their respective &inistries or depart&ents $ith the e&Aassies such as the &ilitary! naval! air! co&&ercial! a#ricultural! laAor! science! and custo&s attaches! or the liBe% ,ttaches assist a chief of &ission in his duties and are ad&inistratively under hi&! Aut their &ain function is to oAserve! analyMe and interpret trends and develop&ents in their respective fields in the host country and suA&it reports to their o$n &inistries or depart&ents in the ho&e #overn&ent% (: These officials are not #enerally re#arded as &e&Aers of the diplo&atic &ission! nor are they nor&ally desi#nated as havin# diplo&atic ranB% In an atte&pt to prove his diplo&atic status! ScalMo presented Diplo&atic Notes Nos% :(:! J<J and JC(! all issued post lite& &ota&! respectively! on 2C May (CC"! 2< OctoAer (CC( and (J Nove&Aer (CC2% The presentation did nothin# &uch to alleviate the 1ourtQs initial reservations in 5%R% No% CJJ><! viM' L;hile the trial court denied the &otion to dis&iss! the puAlic respondent #ravely aAused its discretion in dis&issin# 1ivil 1ase No% =:<>C( on the Aasis of an erroneous assu&ption that si&ply Aecause of the diplo&atic note! the private respondent is clothed $ith diplo&atic i&&unity! thereAy divestin# the trial court of Durisdiction over his person% LI I I I I I I I I L,nd no$! to the core issue = the alle#ed diplo&atic i&&unity of the private respondent% Settin# aside for the &o&ent the issue of authenticity raised Ay the petitioner and the douAts that surround such clai&! in vie$ of the fact that it tooB private respondent one 9() year! ei#ht 9) &onths and seventeen 9(J) days fro& the ti&e his counsel filed on (2 Septe&Aer (C a Special ,ppearance and Motion asBin# for a first eItension of ti&e to file the ,ns$er Aecause the Depart&ents of State and Justice of the -nited States of ,&erica $ere studyin# the case for the purpose of deter&inin# his defenses! Aefore he could secure the Diplo&atic Note fro& the -S +&Aassy in Manila! and even #rantin# for the saBe of ar#u&ent that such note is authentic! the co&plaint for da&a#es filed Ay petitioner cannot Ae pere&ptorily dis&issed% LI I I I I I I I I LThere is of course the clai& of private respondent that the acts i&puted to hi& $ere done in his official capacity% Nothin# supports this self= servin# clai& other than the so=called Diplo&atic Note% I I I% The puAlic respondent then should have sustained the trial courtQs denial of the &otion to dis&iss% Verily! it should have Aeen the &ost proper and appropriate recourse% It should not have Aeen over$hel&ed Ay the self= servin# Diplo&atic Note $hose Aelated issuance is even suspect and $hose authenticity has not yet Aeen proved% The undue haste $ith $hich respondent 1ourt yielded to the private respondentQs clai& is arAitrary%L , si#nificant docu&ent $ould appear to Ae +IhiAit No% "! dated " Nove&Aer (CC2! issued Ay the Office of /rotocol of the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs and si#ned Ay +&&anuel 1% FernandeM! ,ssistant Secretary! certifyin# that Lthe records of the Depart&ent 9$ould) sho$ that Mr% ,rthur ;% ScalMo! Jr%! durin# his ter& of office in the /hilippines 9fro& (: OctoAer (C< up to (" ,u#ust (C) $as listed as an ,ssistant ,ttachN of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission and $as! therefore! accredited diplo&atic status Ay the 5overn&ent of the /hilippines%L No certified true copy of such Lrecords!L the supposed Aases for the Aelated issuance! $as presented in evidence% 1oncededly! vestin# a person $ith diplo&atic i&&unity is a prero#ative of the eIecutive Aranch of the #overn&ent% In ;orld *ealth Or#aniMation vs% ,Fuino! (< the 1ourt has reco#niMed that! in such &atters! the hands of the courts are virtually tied% ,&idst apprehensions of indiscri&inate and incautious #rant of i&&unity! desi#ned to #ain eIe&ption fro& the Durisdiction of courts! it should Aehoove the /hilippine #overn&ent! specifically its Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs! to Ae &ost circu&spect! that should particularly Ae no less than co&pellin#! in its post lite& &ota& issuances% It &i#ht Ae recalled that the privile#e is not an i&&unity fro& the oAservance of the la$ of the territorial soverei#n or fro& ensuin# le#al liaAilityE it is! rather! an i&&unity fro& the eIercise of territorial Durisdiction% (> The #overn&ent of the -nited States itself! $hich ScalMo clai&s to Ae actin# for! has for&ulated its standards for reco#nition of a diplo&atic a#ent% The State Depart&ent policy is to only concede diplo&atic status to a person $ho possesses an acBno$led#ed diplo&atic title and Lperfor&s duties of diplo&atic nature%L (J Supple&entary criteria for accreditation are the possession of a valid diplo&atic passport or! fro& States $hich do not issue such passports! a diplo&atic note for&ally representin# the intention to assi#n the person to diplo&atic duties! the holdin# of a non=i&&i#rant visa! Aein# over t$enty=one years of a#e! and perfor&in# diplo&atic functions on an essentially full=ti&e Aasis% ( Diplo&atic &issions are reFuested to provide the &ost accurate and descriptive DoA title to that $hich currently applies to the duties perfor&ed% The Office of the /rotocol $ould then assi#n each individual to the appropriate functional cate#ory% (C 3ut $hile the diplo&atic i&&unity of ScalMo &i#ht thus re&ain contentious! it $as sufficiently estaAlished that! indeed! he $orBed for the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency and $as tasBed to conduct surveillance of suspected dru# activities $ithin the country on the dates pertinent to this case% If it should Ae ascertained that ,rthur ScalMo $as actin# $ell $ithin his assi#ned functions $hen he co&&itted the acts alle#ed in the co&plaint! the present controversy could then Ae resolved under the related doctrine of State I&&unity fro& Suit% The 5r,c,56 6ha6 a #6a6, ca11o6 -, 7.,2 81 6h, co.r67 o9 a 9or,8:1 76a6, is a lon#=standin# rule of custo&ary international la$ then closely identified $ith the personal i&&unity of a forei#n soverei#n fro& suit 2" and! $ith the e&er#ence of de&ocratic states! &ade to attach not Dust to the person of the head of state! or his representative! Aut also distinctly to the state itself in its soverei#n capacity% 2( If the acts #ivin# rise to a suit are those of a forei#n #overn&ent done Ay its forei#n a#ent! althou#h not necessarily a diplo&atic persona#e! Aut actin# in his official capacity! the co&plaint could Ae Aarred Ay the i&&unity of the forei#n soverei#n fro& suit $ithout its consent% Suin# a representative of a state is Aelieved to Ae! in effect! suin# the state itself% The proscription is not accorded for the Aenefit of an individual Aut for the State! in $hose service he is! under the &aIi& = par in pare&! non haAet i&periu& = that all states are soverei#n eFuals and cannot assert Durisdiction over one another% 22 The i&plication! in Aroad ter&s! is that if the Dud#&ent a#ainst an official $ould reFuire the state itself to perfor& an affir&ative act to satisfy the a$ard! such as the appropriation of the a&ount needed to pay the da&a#es decreed a#ainst hi&! the suit &ust Ae re#arded as Aein# a#ainst the state itself! althou#h it has not Aeen for&ally i&pleaded% 27 In -nited States of ,&erica vs% 5uinto! 2: involvin# officers of the -nited States ,ir Force and special officers of the ,ir Force Office of Special Investi#ators char#ed $ith the duty of preventin# the distriAution! possession and use of prohiAited dru#s! this 1ourt has ruled = L;hile the doctrine 9of state i&&unity) appears to prohiAit only suits a#ainst the state $ithout its consent! it is also applicaAle to co&plaints filed a#ainst officials of the state for acts alle#edly perfor&ed Ay the& in the dischar#e of their duties% I I I% It cannot for a &o&ent Ae i&a#ined that they $ere actin# in their private or unofficial capacity $hen they apprehended and later testified a#ainst the co&plainant% It follo$s that for dischar#in# their duties as a#ents of the -nited States! they cannot Ae directly i&pleaded for acts i&putaAle to their principal! $hich has not #iven its consent to Ae sued% I I I ,s they have acted on Aehalf of the #overn&ent! and $ithin the scope of their authority! it is that #overn&ent! and not the petitioners personally! ?$ho $ere@ responsiAle for their acts%L 2< This i&&unity principle! ho$ever! has its li&itations% Thus! Shauf vs% 1ourt of ,ppeals 2> elaAorates' LIt is a different &atter $here the puAlic official is &ade to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to la$ and inDurious to the ri#hts of the plaintiff% ,s $as clearly set forth Ay Justice 6aldivar in Director of the 3ureau of Teleco&&unications! et al%! vs% ,li#aen! et al% 977 S1R, 7>)' RInas&uch as the State authoriMes only le#al acts Ay its officers! unauthoriMed acts of #overn&ent officials or officers are not acts of the State! and an action a#ainst the officials or officers Ay one $hose ri#hts have Aeen invaded or violated Ay such acts! for the protection of his ri#hts! is not a suit a#ainst the State $ithin the rule of i&&unity of the State fro& suit% In the sa&e tenor! it has Aeen said that an action at la$ or suit in eFuity a#ainst a State officer or the director of a State depart&ent on the #round that! $hile clai&in# to act for the State! he violates or invades the personal and property ri#hts of the plaintiff! under an unconstitutional act or under an assu&ption of authority $hich he does not have! is not a suit a#ainst the State $ithin the constitutional provision that the State &ay not Ae sued $ithout its consent% The rationale for this rulin# is that the doctrine of state i&&unity cannot Ae used as an instru&ent for perpetratin# an inDustice% LI I I I I I I I I L9T)he doctrine of i&&unity fro& suit $ill not apply and &ay not Ae invoBed $here the puAlic official is Aein# sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citiMen% The cloaB of protection afforded the officers and a#ents of the #overn&ent is re&oved the &o&ent they are sued in their individual capacity% This situation usually arises $here the puAlic official acts $ithout authority or in eIcess of the po$ers vested in hi&% It is a $ell=settled principle of la$ that a puAlic official &ay Ae liaAle in his personal private capacity for $hatever da&a#e he &ay have caused Ay his act done $ith &alice and in Aad faith or Aeyond the scope of his authority and Durisdiction%L 2J , forei#n a#ent! operatin# $ithin a territory! can Ae cloaBed $ith i&&unity fro& suit Aut only as lon# as it can Ae estaAlished that he is actin# $ithin the directives of the sendin# state% The consent of the host state is an indispensaAle reFuire&ent of Aasic courtesy Aet$een the t$o soverei#ns% 5uinto and Shauf Aoth involve officers and personnel of the -nited States! stationed $ithin /hilippine territory! under the R/=-S Military 3ases ,#ree&ent% ;hile evidence is $antin# to sho$ any si&ilar a#ree&ent Aet$een the #overn&ents of the /hilippines and of the -nited States 9for the latter to send its a#ents and to conduct surveillance and related activities of suspected dru# dealers in the /hilippines)! the consent or imprimatur of the /hilippine #overn&ent to the activities of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency! ho$ever! can Ae #leaned fro& the facts heretofore else$here &entioned% The official eIchan#es of co&&unication Aet$een a#encies of the #overn&ent of the t$o countries! certifications fro& officials of Aoth the /hilippine Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs and the -nited States +&Aassy! as $ell as the participation of &e&Aers of the /hilippine Narcotics 1o&&and in the LAuy=Aust operationL conducted at the residence of Minucher at the Aehest of ScalMo! &ay Ae inadeFuate to support the Ldiplo&atic statusL of the latter Aut they #ive enou#h indication that the /hilippine #overn&ent has #iven its imprimatur! if not consent! to the activities $ithin /hilippine territory of a#ent ScalMo of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency% The DoA description of ScalMo has tasBed hi& to conduct surveillance on suspected dru# suppliers and! after havin# ascertained the tar#et! to infor& local la$ enforcers $ho $ould then Ae eIpected to &aBe the arrest% In conductin# surveillance activities on Minucher! later actin# as the poseur=Auyer durin# the Auy=Aust operation! and then Aeco&in# a principal $itness in the cri&inal case a#ainst Minucher! ScalMo hardly can Ae said to have acted Aeyond the scope of his official function or duties% ,ll told! this 1ourt is constrained to rule that respondent ,rthur ScalMo! an a#ent of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency allo$ed Ay the /hilippine #overn&ent to conduct activities in the country to help contain the proAle& on the dru# traffic! is entitled to the defense of state i&&unity fro& suit% &HEREF!RE! on the fore#oin# pre&ises! the petition is D+NI+D% No costs% SO ORD+R+D% Davide! Jr%! 1%J%! 91hair&an)! .nares=Santia#o! 1arpio and ,Mcuna! JJ%! concur
Tunde O. Sosanya v. Bob Anthony, Commissioner Jim Proctor Larry Schroeder Edwin Farrar George Mathai George Kiser Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 61 F.3d 916, 10th Cir. (1995)