Scribd
Upload
197 views

Case Digest

Arthur Scalzo, a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, was involved in a "buy-bust operation" at the house of Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national. Minucher was later acquitted of drug trafficking charges. Minucher then filed a complaint against Scalzo for damages. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity. The trial court denied Scalzo's motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals ruled that Scalzo was entitled to diplomatic immunity as his activities in the Philippines were conducted with the consent of the Philippine government as part of his duties for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.

Uploaded by

Jaay
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
197 views

Case Digest

Arthur Scalzo, a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, was involved in a "buy-bust operation" at the house of Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national. Minucher was later acquitted of drug trafficking charges. Minucher then filed a complaint against Scalzo for damages. Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity. The trial court denied Scalzo's motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals ruled that Scalzo was entitled to diplomatic immunity as his activities in the Philippines were conducted with the consent of the Philippine government as part of his duties for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.

Uploaded by

Jaay
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/ 2

(12)

KHOSROW MINUCHER vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO


(G.R. No. 142396 February 11, 2003)

Facts: Violation of the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” was filed against Minucher following a “buy-bust
operation” conducted by Philippine police narcotic agents accompanied by Scalzo in the house of Minucher,
an Iranian national, where heroin was said to have been seized. Minucher was later acquitted by the court.

Minucher later on filed for damages due to trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur
Scalzo. Scalzo on his counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge of his official duties as being merely
an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice.

Scalzo subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, being a special
agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity. He
attached to his motion Diplomatic Note of the United States Embassy addressed to DOJ of the Philippines
and a Certification of Vice Consul Donna Woodward, certifying that the note is a true and faithful copy of
its original. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic immunity.

RULLING: YES. A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit as
long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state.

The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the activities of the United States Drug
Enforcement Agency, however, can be gleaned from the undisputed facts in the case.

 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
 Participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in the “buy-bust operation” conducted
at the residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo

These may be inadequate to support the “diplomatic status” of the latter but they give 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.
(18)

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala 630 F.2d 876 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16111 (2d Cir. N.Y. June 30, 1980)

Facts. The Filártiga family, Dolly and Dr. Joel Filártiga, Paraguay nationals, claim that on 29 March 1976,
Dr. Filártiga’s seventeen-year-old son Joelito Filártiga was kidnapped and tortured to death by the
Inspector General of Police in Asuncion at that time, Américo Norberto Peña-Irala (Peña). They claim that
Joelito was maltreated because his father was a longstanding opponent of the government of
Paraguayan President Alfredo Stroessner who ruled over the country since 1954.

The Filártiga family filed a complaint before US courts alleging that Peña had wrongfully caused Joelito's
death by torture and seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $ 10,000,000. In support of federal
jurisdiction, the Filártiga family relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a federal statute of 1789. They also
sought to enjoin Peña’s deportation to ensure his availability for testimony at trial. The District Court for
the Eastern District of New York dismissed the case on the grounds that subject matter jurisdiction was
absent and for forum non conveniens. Appellants challenged the district court's decision.

Issue. (1) For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute, may torture be considered as a violation of the law of
nations?
(2) Did the district court have jurisdiction over the subject matter?

Held. (1) Yes. For purpose of the Allen Tort Statute, torture may be considered to violate law of nations.
The prohibition against torture has become part of customary international law. Various United Nations
declarations such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1975 Declaration on the Protection
of All Persons from Torture further portrays the fact that prohibition against torture has become part of
customary international law. Torture has been officially renounced in the vast majority of nations and this is
the reason why this court concluded that torture violates the law of nations.

2) Yes.The court determined that deliberate torture perpetuated under color of official authority
violated universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality
of the parties. Official torture had been prohibited by the law of nations. The prohibition was clear and
unambiguous and admitted no distinction between treatment of aliens and citizens. Whenever an alleged
torturer was found and served with process by an alien within the borders of the United States, federal
jurisdiction was appropriate. The court determined that its jurisdiction was appropriate. The court reversed
the decision of the district court, which dismissed appellants' complaint for want of subject matter
jurisdiction.

You might also like