You are on page 1of 2

Minucher vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 142396. February 11, 2003
Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals
Ponente: Vitug, J.
Petitioner: KHOSROW MINUCHER
Respondents: HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO
Facts:
Khoskrow Minucher was an Iranian National who came to the Philippines in 1974 to
study and later became a refugee of the United Nations after the Iranian government he was
working for was deposed. On the other hand, Arthur Scalzo was a special agent of the US Drugs Enforcement
Agency. He conducts surveillance operations on suspected drug dealers in the Philippines believed to be the source
of prohibited drugs shipped to the US and make the actual arrest.
The petitioner and one Abbas Torabian was charged for a violation of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972) before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC), such criminal charge was followed by a buybust operation conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents to which Scalzo was a witness for the
prosecution. They were acquitted.
Later on, Minucher filed a complaint for damages against Scalzo at the Manila RTC on account of
what he claimed to have been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking. In his complaint, he said that
during the buy bust operation wherein he was arrested without any warrant, some of his valuable were missing. He
averred that his arrest as a heroine trafficker was well publicized and that when we got arrested, he was not given
any food or water for 3 days. In his defense, Scalzo asserted his diplomatic immunity as evidenced by a
Diplomatic Note. He contended that it was recognized by the US Government pursuant to the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations and the Philippine government itself thru its Executive Department and DFA.
The trial court decided in favour of the petitioner citing that even if he was a diplomatic agent, he should
be still held liable of the crime since he committed it outside his official duties. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
(CA) reversed the trial courts decision and sustained Scalzos defense that he was sufficiently clothed with
diplomatic immunity during his term of duty and thereby immune from the criminal and civil
jurisdiction of the Receiving State pursuant to the terms of the Vienna Convention.
The petitioner filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the respondent is entitled to a diplomatic immunity.

Ruling:
Undecided. Under the Vienna Convention, only diplomatic agents, under the terms of the
Convention, are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits; and the
main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the
determination of whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic nature.
In the present case, the Supreme Court (SC) held that the diplomatic status of the
respondent remains contentious since the official exchanges of communication between agencies
of the government of the two countries, certifications from officials of both the Philippine
Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy, as well as the participation of
members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in the buy-bust operation conducted at the
residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo, may be inadequate to support the diplomatic
status. However, the said exchanges have given enough indication that the Philippine
government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to the activities within Philippine territory
of agent Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency.
The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug
suppliers and, after having ascertained the target, to inform local law enforcers who would then
be expected to make the arrest. In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting as
the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then becoming a principal witness in the
criminal case against Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his
official function or duties.
The SC was constrained to rule that respondent Arthur Scalzo, an agent of the United
States Drug Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine government to conduct activities in
the country to help contain the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state
immunity from suit which is related but different from diplomatic immunity.
Disposition: The petition was denied.

You might also like