KHOSROW MINUCHER, petitioner, vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR

SCALZO, respondents
G.R. No. 142396. February 11, 2003
VITUG, J.

Facts

Khosrow Minucher, petitioner, was arrested in his residence for the reason that the
petitioner was suspected of being an illegal drug trafficker. As Minucher was acquitted by the
court, he filed for damages for trumped-up charges of drug trafficking against Arthur Scalzo who
initiated petitioner’s arrest.

Scalzo on his counterclaims defended that he being a special agent of the United States
Drug Enforcement Administration (USDEA), he was entitled to diplomatic immunity as he was
just discharging his official duties as ordered. In relation thereto, he submitted various
documents to prove his statement.

Issue

Whether Scalzo would be entitled to the diplomatic immunity.

Decision

Yes Scalzo is entitled to the diplomatic immunity asked. A foreign agent, operating
within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but only as long as it can be
established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state.

Based on the supporting documents submitted by Scalzo, it can be affirmed that he was in
fact a special agent of the USDEA. Also, he can be cloaked with immunity because it was
established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state by the job description of
Scalzo; He was tasked 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, it can hardly be said that he have acted beyond the scope of his official function or
duties.

Therefore, Scalzo was entitled to the defense of state immunity from suit.

RKKY Digest