Scribd
Upload
142 views1 page

(CD) Minucher v. CA - G.R. No. 142396 - AZapanta

The document discusses a case involving Khosrow Minucher filing a civil case against Arthur Scalzo for trumped-up drug charges. It examines whether Scalzo, an agent of the US Drug Enforcement Agency conducting surveillance in the Philippines, has state immunity from suit. The court ultimately rules that Scalzo is entitled to state immunity as his actions fell within the scope of his official functions.

Uploaded by

The Concerned Lawstudent
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
142 views1 page

(CD) Minucher v. CA - G.R. No. 142396 - AZapanta

The document discusses a case involving Khosrow Minucher filing a civil case against Arthur Scalzo for trumped-up drug charges. It examines whether Scalzo, an agent of the US Drug Enforcement Agency conducting surveillance in the Philippines, has state immunity from suit. The court ultimately rules that Scalzo is entitled to state immunity as his actions fell within the scope of his official functions.

Uploaded by

The Concerned Lawstudent
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

KHOSROW MINUCHER, PETITIONER, VS. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS AND ARTHUR


SCALZO, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 142396
February 11, 2003
FACTS
An Information for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise also known as the
“Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas
Torabian, Scalzo and the accused were introduced with Arthur Scalzo before the time they are captured
through a buy-bust operation, they were of the impression that Scalzo can be confided with acquiring
passport, for he works at the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States.
Minucher filed a Civil Case against Arthur Scalzo for the trumped-up charges of drug trafficking charged
to him. During the trial, Scalzo was compelled for special appearance by the court, through Petitioner’s
motion. It was at this point that Scalzo’s “State Immunity from suit” is questioned, until it reached the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the general scope of criminal law excludes an agent of a State who alleges that he is
entitled to the State immunity from suit principle? (YES)
RULING
But while the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus remain contentious, it was sufficiently
established that, indeed, he worked for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and was tasked to
conduct surveillance of suspected drug activities within the country on the dates pertinent to this case. If it
should be ascertained that Arthur Scalzo was acting well within his assigned functions when he
committed the acts alleged in the complaint, the present controversy could then be resolved under the
related doctrine of State Immunity from Suit.
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.
xxxx
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.

All told, this Court is 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.

WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the petition is DENIED.

You might also like