G.R. No. 125865, 2001 March 26
FACTS
Petitioner is an economist working with the ADB. Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against a fellow ADB worker, he was charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. He was, thereafter, released on bail. The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government. The MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is covered by immunity under the Agreement
RULING
No. The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. It has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges. Also, Section 45 of the Agreement provides that the immunity is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts was done in "official capacity". Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.
Comments
Post a Comment