In Philippine law, defamation is categorized into libel and slander:

1. Libel refers to defamatory statements made in writing or through permanent representation.

It is governed by Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and includes online libel under the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

2. Slander, also known as oral defamation, involves spoken defamatory statements. It is covered
under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

Additionally, slander by deed is a unique form of defamation expressed through actions rather than
words. It involves acts that humiliate or ridicule the victim.

The penalties for these offenses vary:

 Libel: Imprisonment ranging from 6 months to 8 years, depending on whether it's traditional
or online.

 Slander: Simple slander is punishable by arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) or a fine, while grave
slander carries heavier penalties.

 Slander by deed: Imprisonment ranging from 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.

EXAMPLES

1. Belen vs People GR 211120

- This case revolved around a lawyer, Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, who filed an Omnibus Motion
containing defamatory statements against Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Victoria Suñega-Lagman. The
motion was shared with third parties, fulfilling the publication requirement for libel. The court ruled that
the statements were not protected as privileged communication and convicted Belen of libel.

This case clarified that for libel to exist, the defamatory content must meet certain criteria:

 Publication: The defamatory statements must be made accessible to third parties. Here, the
motion was shared beyond the courtroom, satisfying this criterion.

 Identification: The person being defamed must be identifiable. Prosecutor Ma. Victoria Suñega-
Lagman was clearly named in the motion.

 Defamatory Content: The statements must damage the reputation of the person. The court
found the statements maliciously attacked the prosecutor's character.

 Absence of Privilege: The court ruled that the motion was not protected as privileged
communication, highlighting the limits of such protection in defamation cases.

The decision reinforced that even legal documents, when circulated improperly, can lead to libel
convictions.

2. Roberto Brillante vs CA GR 118757 & 121571

 - Roberto Brillante accused Jejomar Binay of plotting an assassination during a press conference
and circulated an open letter to journalists. The defamatory statements were published in newspapers,
leading to Brillante's conviction for libel. The court emphasized the importance of protecting reputations
against malicious imputations

 Freedom of Expression vs. Defamation: The court emphasized that while freedom of speech is
protected, it does not extend to malicious accusations.

 Malice: It was proven that the accusations against Jejomar Binay were made with malice,
intending to harm his reputation.

 Defamatory Statements: The publication of the accusations in newspapers elevated the harm
caused, as it reached a wide audience.

 Public Figures: The court noted that public figures have a slightly higher threshold for
defamation claims due to their role in public discourse. However, malicious attacks still violate
defamation laws.

The ruling demonstrated the balance between protecting reputations and allowing freedom of
expression, especially in cases involving public personalities.

Slander / Oral Defamation, A358 Revised Penal Code

Updated on November 23, 2023

Slander or oral defamation is libel via spoken words.

1. Concept

Slander or Oral Defamation – is “libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing.” It is
defined as “the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood.” (De Leon v. People, G.R. No. 212623, January
11, 2016, Per Mendoza J.)

a. Legal basis

Art. 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prisión correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the
penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000). (As amended
by R.A. 10951).

(Revised Penal Code)

2. Modes of commission

The following are the modes of committing the offense:

1) Simple Oral Defamation; or

2) Grave Oral Defamation – when it is of a serious and insulting nature. (REVISED PENALC ODE, Article
358; De Leon v. People, supra.)

a. Mode 1: Simple Oral Defamation

Elements of the offense of simple oral defamation:

1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
status or circumstances;

2) Made orally;

3) Publicly;

4) And maliciously;

5) Directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead;

6) Which tends to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt of the person defamed. (De Leon v. People,
supra.)

1) Element 1: Imputation

An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the

possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead. (De Leon v. People, supra.)

[I]n Cruz v. Court of Appeals, petitioner and complainant, a Municipal Judge, were next door neighbors.
Animosity grew between their two families because of some disputes. Petitioner resented the practice of
complainant of throwing garbage and animal excrement into her premises. There was also a boundary
dispute between petitioner’s mother and complainant, which was the subject of a civil suit for “Recovery
of Possession, Ownership, Enforcement of Legal Easement and Abatement of Nuisance” filed by the
mother before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against complainant. Additionally, petitioner’s mother
had previously instituted an administrative complaint against the complainant before the Supreme
Court, but the same was dismissed. There was a pent-up feeling of being aggrieved, resentment, anger,
and vexation on petitioner’s part, culminating in her outburst against complainants. For having called the
complainant judge “land grabber,” “shameless” and “hypocrite,” petitioner was charged and
subsequently convicted by the Court of First Instance of three separate offenses of Grave Oral
Defamation committed on 5, 6 and 8 August 1976. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the verdicts
of conviction. On review, however, we held that although the abusive remarks may ordinarily be
considered as serious defamation, under the environmental circumstances of the case, there having
been provocation on complainant’s part, and the utterances complained of having been made in the
heat of unrestrained anger and obfuscation, petitioner is liable only for the crime of Slight Oral
Defamation… (Villanueva v. People, supra., citing Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-56224-26,
November 25, 1982)

Pader v. People, G.R. No. 139157, February 8, 2000, Per Pardo, J.:
The accused shouted “putang ina mo Atty. Escolango. Napakawalanghiya mo!” at the gate of Atty.
Escolangco, who was then having conversation with his political leaders at the terrace of his house. As
Atty. Escolangco was running for Vice Mayor at that time, he was dumbfounded and embarrassed by
such remark.]

• The issue is whether petitioner is guilty of slight or serious oral defamation. In resolving the issue, we
are guided by a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other,
depending not only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging
them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship
between the offended party and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at
the time.

• Unquestionably, the words uttered were defamatory. Considering, however, the factual backdrop of
the case, the oral defamation was only slight. The trial court, in arriving at its decision, considered that
the defamation was deliberately done to destroy Atty. Escolango’s reputation since the parties were
political opponents.

• We do not agree. Somehow, the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the parties were also
neighbors; that petitioner was drunk at the time he uttered the defamatory words; and the fact that
petitioner’s anger was instigated by what Atty. Escolango did when petitioner’s father died. In which
case, the oral defamation was not of serious or insulting nature.

• … the expression “putang ina mo” is a common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed,
not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more often, it is just an expletive
that punctuates one’s expression of profanity. We do not find it seriously insulting that after a previous
incident involving his father, a drunk [R.] Pader on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words expressing
anger. Obviously, the intention was to show his feelings of resentment and not necessarily to insult the
latter. Being a candidate running for vice mayor, occasional gestures and words of disapproval or dislike
of his person are not uncommon.

• In similar fashion, the trial court erred in awarding moral damages without proof of suffering.
Accordingly, petitioner may be convicted only of slight oral defamation defined and penalized under
Article 358, Revised Penal Code…

a) Words used, construed in entirety

To determine whether a statement is defamatory, the words used in the statement must be construed in
their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally
be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in
another sense. (De Leon v. People, supra.)

b) Insulting words, not actionable

It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se,
and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or
spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special
damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself. (De
Leon v. People, supra.)
c) “Yabang”

[I]n Jamilano v. Court of Appeals, where calling someone “yabang” (boastful or arrogant) was found not
defamatory, the complainant’s subsequent recourse to the law on oral defamation was not sustained by
the Court. (De Leon v. People, supra, citing Jamilano v. Court of Appeals, En Banc, G.R. No. L-26059,
October 31, 1969)

d) Heat of anger

[I]t is a rule that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of
the offended party constitutes only a light felony. (De Leon v. People, supra.)

2) Element 2: Made orally

To constitute slander or oral defamation, the defamatory remark should be done orally. Otherwise, if it
was on writing, it would be covered be libel.

Agbayani v. CA, G.R. No. 183623, June 25, 2012, Per Reyes, J.:

• Agbayani and Genabe were both employees of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)…, working as Court
Stenographer and Legal Researcher II, respectively. On December 29, 2006, Agbayani filed a criminal
complaint for grave oral defamation… for allegedly uttering against her, in the presence of their fellow
court employees and while she was going about her usual duties at work, the following statements, to
wit:

“ANG GALING MO LETY, SINABI MO NA TINAPOS MO YUNG MARVILLA CASE, ANG GALING MO. FEELING
LAWYER KA KASI, BAKIT DI KA MAGDUTY NA LANG, STENOGRAPHER KA MAGSTENO KA NA LANG, ANG
GALING MO, FEELING LAWYER KA TALAGA. NAGBEBENTA KA NG KASO, TIRADOR KA NG JUDGE. SIGE
HIGH BLOOD DIN KA, MAMATAY KA SANA SA HIGH BLOOD MO.”

• We recall that in the morning of December 27, 2006 when the alleged utterances were made, Genabe
was about to punch in her time in her card when she was informed that she had been suspended for
failing to meet her deadline in a case, and that it was Agbayani who informed the presiding judge that
she had missed her deadline when she left to attend a convention in Baguio City, leaving Agbayani to
finish the task herself. According to Undersecretary Pineda, the confluence of these circumstances was
the immediate cause of respondent Genabe’s emotional and psychological distress. We rule that his
determination that the defamation was uttered while the respondent was in extreme excitement or in a
state of passion and obfuscation, rendering her offense of lesser gravity than if it had been made with
cold and calculating deliberation, is beyond the ambit of our review. The CA concurred that the
complained utterances constituted only slight oral defamation, having been said in the heat of anger and
with perceived provocation from Agbayani. Respondent Genabe was of a highly volatile personality
prone to throw fits (sumpongs), who thus shared a hostile working environment with her co-employees,
particularly with her superiors, Agbayani and Hon. [B.] Maceda, the Presiding Judge of Branch 275,
whom she claimed had committed against her “grievous acts that outrage moral and social conduct.”
That there had been a long-standing animosity between Agbayani and Genabe is not denied.

3). Element 3: Publicly

De Leon v. People, G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016, Per Mendoza, J.:
• Records show that De Leon was charged with Grave Oral Defamation in the Information filed… the
accusatory portion of which reads:

That, on or about April 17, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with the deliberate
intent to besmirch the honor and reputation of one SPO3 [P.L.] LEONARDO, did and there wilfully,
unlawfully, feloniously publicly proffer against the latter slanderous words and expressions such as
“WALANGHIYA KANG MANGONGOTONG NA PULIS KA, ANG YABANG YABANG MO NOON. PATAY KA SA
AKIN MAMAYA [,]” and other words and expressions of similar import, thereby bringing the said SPO3
[P.L.] LEONARDO into public contempt, discredit and ridicule.

Contrary to law.

• [Version of the Prosecution] The first hearing was scheduled on April 17, 2006 at the PLEB office on the
5th Floor of the Manila City Hall; At around 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon, while waiting outside the PLEB
office on the 5th floor of the Manila City Hall, [Complainant] noticed [Accused] and several of his
companions approaching. Before entering the PLEB office, De Leon uttered these words to SPO3
Leonardo, “Walanghiya kang mangongotong na pulis ka, ang yabang yabang mo noon. Patay ka sa akin
ngayon.”

• [Version of the Defense] [T]he defense claimed that there was a prior incident that took place on the
morning of February 27, 2006 when De Leon, with his son John, while having breakfast with their fellow
joggers at the Philippine National Railroad-Tutuban Station, were approached by SPO3 Leonardo who
arrived on his scooter. With his gun drawn, SPO3 Leonardo walked fast towards the group and at a
distance of two meters, more or less, he said, “Putang ina mo, tapos ka na Ricky Boy, referring to De
Leon.” He pressed the trigger but the gun did not fire, when he was to strike again, De Leon was able to
escape with the help of John… [Next par.] Consequently, De Leon and John filed an administrative
complaint for grave misconduct against SPO3 Leonardo before the PLEB and the first hearing was set on
April 17, 2006. In his Sinumpaang Salaysay sa Paghahabla filed before the PLEB, De Leon narrated that
he and SPO3 Leonardo were former jogging buddies and that the latter wanted to borrow money from
the former in the amount of P150,000.00, but he declined. SPO3 Leonardo became upset with him,
culminating in the gun-pointing incident… [Next par.] On April 17, 2006, at around 1:30 o’clock in the
afternoon, De Leon, in the company of his wife Concepcion, Manalo, Molera, and several others went to
the PLEB office to attend the hearing. When De Leon and his companions arrived at the PLEB, they saw
SPO3 Leonardo seated on the bench alone; that they were about to pass when SPO3 Leonardo stood up,
badmouthed and threatened De Leon by uttering the words, “Putang-ina mong mayabang ka, pag di mo
inurong demanda mo sa akin, papatayin kita.”

• Considering the factual backdrop of this case, the Court is convinced that the crime committed by De
Leon was only slight oral defamation for the following reasons:

• First, as to the relationship of the parties, they were obviously acquainted with each other as they
were former jogging buddies. Prior to the purported gun-pointing incident, there was no reason for De
Leon to harbor ill feelings towards SPO3 Leonardo.

• Second, as to the timing of the utterance, this was made during the first hearing on the administrative
case, shortly after the alleged gun-pointing incident. The gap between the gun-pointing incident and the
first hearing was relatively short, a span of time within which the wounded feelings could not have been
healed. The utterance made by De Leon was but a mere product of emotional outburst, kept inside his
system and unleashed during their encounter.

• Third, such words taken as a whole were not uttered with evident intent to strike deep into the
character of SPO3 Leonardo as the animosity between the parties should have been considered. It was
because of the purported gun-pointing incident that De Leon hurled those words. There was no
intention to ridicule or humiliate SPO3 Leonardo because De Leon’s utterance could simply be construed
as his expression of dismay towards his actions as his friend and member of the community.

• The defamatory remarks were not in connection with the public officer’s duty

• Finally, the Court finds that even though SPO3 Leonardo was a police officer by profession, his
complaint against De Leon for oral defamation must still prosper. It has been held that a public officer
should not be too onion-skinned and should be tolerant of criticism. The doctrine, nevertheless, would
only apply if the defamatory statement was uttered in connection with the public officer’s duty…

4) Element 4: Maliciously

The imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstances, should be done maliciously, as opposed to remarks which may have for their purpose as a
joke or humor, which carry no malicious intent.

5) Element 5: Natural or juridical persons, or dead persons

The defamed person may be natural persons or juridical persons.

Natural persons refer to individuals or human beings, and they either be living or dead.

Juridical persons refer to artificial persons created by law, such as a corporation, partnership, association,
and so on.

6) Element 6: Dishonour, discredit, or contempt

The imputation should tend to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt of the defamed person, such as
casting doubt or suspicion on their honor or reputation.

a) Called gangster in the middle of a sermon

In the case of People v. Arcand, a priest called the offended party a gangster in the middle of the sermon.
The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for slight slander as there was no imputation of a
crime, a vice or immorality. (De Leon v. People, supra, citing People v. Arcand, G.R. No. 46336, September
29, 1939)

b) “Putang nia mo”

In Pader v. People, the Court ruled that the crime committed was only slight oral defamation as it
considered the expression, “putang ina mo,” as expression to convey anger or displeasure. Such
utterance was found not seriously insulting considering that he was drunk when he uttered those words
and his anger was instigated by what the private complainant did when the former’s father died. (De
Leon v. People, supra, citing Pader v. People, G.R. No. 139157, February 8, 2000)
b. Mode 2: Grave Oral Defamation

Elements of the offense of grave oral defamation:

1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
status or circumstances;

2) Made orally;

3) Publicly;

4) And maliciously;

5) Directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead;

6) Which tends to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.

7) Serious and insulting nature (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 358; See De Leon v. People, supra.)

1) Element 1: Imputation

See earlier discussion.

2) Element 2: Made orally

See earlier discussion.

3) Element 3: Publicly

Seeearlier related discussion.

4) Element 4: Maliciously

Seeearlier related discussion.

5) Element 5: Natural or juridical persons, or dead persons

Seeearlier related discussion.

6) Element 6: Dishonour, discredit, or contempt

Seeearlier related discussion.

7) Element 7: Serious in nature

Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon the sense
and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special circumstances of the case, like the
social standing or the advanced age of the offended party. (De Leon v. People, supra.)

Indeed, it is a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other,
depending not only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging
them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship
between the offended party and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at
the time. (Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006, Per Chico-Nazario, J.)
a) Factors

The gravity depends upon:

1) the expressions used;

2) the personal relations of the accused and the offended party; and

3) the special circumstances of the case, the antecedents or relationship between the offended party
and the offender, which may tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time. (De Leon v. People,
supra.)

b) Scurrilous epithets, imputing unchastity

In U.S. v. Tolosa, where a woman of violent temper hurled offensive and scurrilous epithets including
words imputing unchastity against a respectable married lady and tending to injure the character of her
young daughters, the Court ruled that the crime committed was grave slander. (De Leon v. People, supra,
citing G.R. No. L-12696, November 19, 1917)

c) Imputed estafa

In Balite v. People, the accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation as the scurrilous words he
imputed to the offended party constituted the crime of estafa. (De Leon v. People, supra, citing Balite v.
People, En Banc, G.R. No. L-21475, September 30, 1966)

3. Things to note

The following are some additional things to note about this offense.

a. Social standing

[T]hat the social standing and position of the offended party are also taken into account and thus, it was
held that the slander was grave, because the offended party had held previously the Office of
Congressman, Governor, and Senator and was then a candidate for Vice-President, for which no amount
of sophistry would take the statement out of the compass of grave oral defamation. ( Villanueva v.
People, supra.)

b. Extemporaneous over radio

Is it libel or oral defamation if a person shouted defamatory remarks through an amplifier system? This
was the novel question posed in the case below.

People v. Santiago, En Banc, G.R. No. L-17663, May 30, 1962, Concepcion, J.:

• The information herein alleges that defendant Isauro Santiago has committed the crime of “libel” as
follows:

That on or about the 5th day of October 1959, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, for the
evident purpose of injuring the name and reputation of [A.H.] Lacson, and of impeaching and
besmirching the latter’s virtue, honesty, honor and reputation, and with the malicious intent of exposing
him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, did then and there wilfully, feloniously, maliciously and
publicly call said Mayor [A.H.] Lacson, in the course of a political speech delivered at 392 Fraternal,
Quiapo, in said city, thru the medium of an amplifier system and before a crowd of around a hundred
persons, the following, to wit: “Arsenio Hayop Lacson, pinakawalang hiyang Alkalde, Mayor Lacson
raped a woman at the Aroma Cafe and another City Hall employee in Shellborne Hotel”, which are false,
malicious and highly defamatory statements against Mayor [A.H.] Lacson, delivered with no good
intentions or justifiable motive, but solely for the purpose of injuring the name and reputation of said
Mayor [A.H.] Lacson and to expose him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

• Defendant moved to quash this information upon the ground that the crime charged therein is, not
libel, but oral defamation, which has already prescribed…

• The prosecution maintains that “the medium of an amplifier system”, thru which the defamatory
statements imputed to the accused were allegedly made, falls within the purview of the terms “writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means”, appearing in said Article 355, in the sense, at least, that in “amplifier
system” is a means “similar” to “radio”.

• This pretense is untenable. To begin with, as correctly stated in defendant’s brief, “radio as a means of
publication is ‘the transmission and reception of electromagnetic waves without conducting wires
intervening between transmitter and receiver” (Library of Universal Knowledge)’” (see, also, 18
Encyclopedia Britanica, p. 285), “while transmission of words by means of an amplifier system”, such as
the one mentioned in the information, “is not thru ‘electromagnetic waves’ and is with the use of
‘conducting wires’ intervening between the transmitter… and the receiver…”

• Secondly, even the word “radio” used in said Article 355, should be considered in relation to the terms
with which it is associated — “writing, printing, lithography, engraving… phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition or cinematographical exhibition” — all of which have a common characteristic, namely, their
permanent nature as a means of publication, and this explains the graver penalty for libel than that
prescribed for oral defamation. Thus, it has been held that slanderous statements forming part of a
manuscript read by a speaker over the radio constitute libel…, whereas the rules governing such offense
were declared inapplicable to extemporaneous remarks of scurrilous nature, made ad libitum in the
course of a radio broadcast by a person hired to read a prepared text, but not appearing thereon…

• IN SHORT, the facts alleged in the information constitute the crime of oral defamation…

4. Distinguish from other offenses

This offense is distinguished from other offenses or crimes below.

a. Slander vs Slander by deed

Factors Slander or Oral Defamation Slander by Deed

Offended Party Any person Any person

Offender Any person Any person

 Overt Acts Defamation via spoken words Defamation via conduct or behavior

Thus, slander is defamation via spoken words. On the other hand, slander by deed is defamation via
conduct or behavior.

For more information, see: Slander by Deed

b. Slander vs Libel

Factors Slander or Oral Defamation Libel

Offended Party Any person Any person

Offender Any person Any person

Overt Acts Defamation via spoken words Defamation via printed means, including electronic means thru Cyb

Thus, slander is defamation via spoken words. On the other hand, libel is defamation via printed words.

For more information, see: Libel

4. In relation to other offenses

The offense has been related to these other offenses.

a. No crime of grave oral defamation in relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610

If defamatory remarks were directed at minors, does this constitute child abuse under Section 10(a) of
R.A. 7610? If so, may this be related to oral defamation? This was the interesting question that was
resolved in the following case.

Brinas v. People, G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021, Per Caguioa, J.:

• In gist, Briñas posits that she was improperly convicted of a crime which does not exist because grave
oral defamation under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610 are
different and mutually exclusive offenses. Hence, convicting her for one in relation to the other was an
error. She claims that she cannot be made liable for child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610
because the same requires a specific criminal intent to degrade, debase or demean the intrinsic worth of
a child as a human being which is lacking in the present case.

• Section 10(a) is clear in that it punishes acts of child abuse which are “not covered by the Revised
Penal Code.” Hence, on this point, Briñas is correct — she cannot be convicted of grave oral defamation
under the RPC in relation to Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610. From the plain language of Section 10(a), the
acts punished under it and those punished under the RPC are mutually exclusive. Acts which are already
covered by the RPC are excluded from the coverage of Section 10(a).

References
• Title XIII – Crimes Against Honor, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code

Oral Defamation and Its Legal Implications in the Philippines

Topic: Defamation Defamation is a legal concept that involves the communication of a false statement
about an individual, which causes harm to that person's reputation. It is categorized into two types: libel
and slander. Libel refers to defamatory statements made in writing or through any other form of
permanent representation, while slander pertains to verbal or temporary forms of communication. This
article focuses on oral defamation, commonly known as slander, its legal definitions, implications, and
nuances within the context of Philippine law.

Applicable Laws: The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines; Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Oral
defamation or slander in the Philippines is primarily governed by the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815),
particularly Articles 353 to 362, which outline the definitions, forms, and penalties for defamation, libel,
and slander. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) also extends the
application of libel provisions to electronic means, which can include social media and text messages.

Understanding Oral Defamation

Oral defamation or slander occurs when a person makes a defamatory statement verbally that is not
recorded permanently. The essence of slander lies in the dissemination of false information that could
harm the reputation of the individual being referred to. Under Philippine law, the distinction between
simple slander and grave slander is made based on the gravity of the insult and the social context in
which it was delivered.

Legal Requirements for Slander

For a statement to be considered slanderous, certain elements must be present:

1. Defamatory Nature: The statement must be defamatory, meaning it negatively affects the
reputation of the person it refers to.

2. Malice: There must be malice or intent to harm. However, in cases of slander, malice is generally
presumed, except when the statement falls under privileged communication.

3. Publication or Communication to a Third Party: The statement must be communicated to

someone other than the offended party.

4. Identifiability: The person defamed must be identifiable by the statement, though not
necessarily named.

Slander by Deed

Slander by deed is a form of defamation expressed through actions rather than words. It involves
performing an act that is humiliating and tends to cause the victim to be looked down upon or ridiculed
by others. The penal code specifies this as a separate offense due to its nature of defamation through
action.

Privileged Communication
Certain instances of communication are considered privileged, meaning they cannot be the basis of a
defamation charge. These include statements made in the performance of a duty, provided they are
made in good faith, and comments made without malice in the interest of public welfare.

Penalties for Slander

The penalties for slander vary depending on whether it is considered simple or grave. Grave slander
carries a higher penalty due to the severity of the insult or the means of its communication, reflecting
the law's acknowledgment of the impact of defamatory statements on an individual's reputation.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act and Slander

The advent of social media and electronic communications has broadened the scope of defamation to
include online platforms. The Cybercrime Prevention Act addresses this by including cyber libel as an
offense. However, the principles governing defamation remain consistent, whether the medium is
traditional or electronic.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can truth be a defense against a charge of slander? A: Yes, truth can be a defense, but it must be
proven that the statement was made with good faith and for a justifiable end.

Q: What constitutes "publication" in the context of slander? A: Publication in slander involves the
communication of the defamatory statement to at least one person other than the offended party.

Q: Are opinions considered slanderous? A: Opinions, as long as they do not assert false facts, are
generally not considered slanderous. However, the line between opinion and defamatory statement can
be blurred, depending on how the statement is construed.

Q: Can a person be sued for slander for statements made on social media? A: Yes, statements made on
social media can be considered for slander, especially under the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention
Act, if they fulfill the elements of defamation.

Q: Is there a statute of limitations for filing a slander case? A: Yes, like other criminal offenses, slander
has a statute of limitations, which in the Philippines is generally one year from the time the cause of
action arises.

Understanding the intricacies of oral defamation and slander within the legal framework of the
Philippines is crucial for navigating issues of reputation and communication in both personal and
electronic contexts. The legal system provides mechanisms to protect individuals from defamation while
balancing the right to free expression.

Share

Being the subject of unfair criticism and gossip are matters which adversely affect persons from all
walks of life. At one point, we have encountered situations wherein we have been victimized by insulting
and defamatory remarks. Oftentimes, we ignore such hurtful and unfounded insinuations. However,
when things get out of hand and our reputation is besmirched in the process, we need to pursue legal
remedies to defend ourselves.

Slander or oral defamation are penalized under the Revised Penal Code. In order to successfully lodge a
case for slander, the following elements must be proven:

1. There is an imputation of a crime, vice, defect, act, omission, condition, status or circumstance.

2. The imputation is made publicly.

3. The imputation must be made maliciously.

4. The imputation is directed against a natural or juridical person or one who is dead.

5. The imputation tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or tends to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.

If the imputation is verbally made, then it is considered as slander. However, if the imputation is made
through writing, printing, lithography, radio and other similar means, it is punishable as libel.

It must be borne in mind that the intention of the speaker is immaterial in slander. What is relevant is
how the same is construed by ordinary people. Moreover, proof of truth is not admissible if the
imputation pertains to an act or omission not constituting a crime, except when it relates to acts of
government employees with respect to their duties.

Slander is a serious matter since one can be imprisoned if convicted. Serious slander is punishable by
imprisonment of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or 4
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months while simple slander is punishable by arresto menor or 1 day
to 1 month or a fine not exceeding P200.

Update: With the enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, which amended various provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, the fines for both serious and simple slander have both been revised. Serious
slander is now punishable by imprisonment of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period or 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months or a fine ranging
from P20,000 to P100,000, while simple slander is punishable by arresto menor or 1 day to 1 month or
a fine not exceeding P20,000. (Updated on June 11, 2019.)

Defamation Under Philippine Law: Key Considerations

In the Philippines, defamation falls under the umbrella of "libel" and "slander," which are penalized
under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Both libel and slander pertain to acts that harm another person’s
reputation by spreading false information, whether in written or spoken form. Let's explore these legal
concepts thoroughly.

Libel vs. Slander: Understanding the Distinction

 Libel: This refers to defamatory statements made in written or published form. Under Article 353
of the RPC, libel is defined as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
 cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person.” For example, a false
accusation made in a newspaper, a social media post, or any printed publication would fall under
libel.

 Slander: On the other hand, slander refers to defamatory remarks made orally. This falls under
the same provision of the RPC but is specifically addressed in Article 358, which penalizes oral
defamation. Unlike libel, slander is limited to spoken words, accusations, or derogatory
statements made verbally.

Additionally, the RPC distinguishes between simple slander and grave slander, the latter being more
serious, such as accusations of a criminal act or other moral accusations that damage the individual’s
reputation more severely.

Elements of Defamation: What Must Be Proven

To successfully prove defamation, whether libel or slander, certain elements must be present:

1. Imputation of a Discreditable Act or Condition: The statement must accuse someone of a crime,
vice, defect, or condition that discredits or dishonors them. Even imaginary defects or vices are
actionable if intended to harm the person’s reputation.

2. Publication (for Libel) or Communication (for Slander): The defamatory statement must be
communicated to a third person. For libel, this involves written publication, while for slander, it
can simply mean that the statement was heard by others.

3. Malice: The statement must have been made with malicious intent. Malice is often presumed
when the defamatory statement has been communicated publicly, but there are defenses to this
presumption (e.g., privileged communication).

4. Identifiability: The person defamed must be identifiable in the statement, either explicitly or
implicitly, by the general public or a specific group.

5. Damage to Reputation: The defamatory statement must have caused actual damage to the
individual’s reputation, standing in the community, or their character.

Privileged Communication: A Defense Against Defamation

In some cases, certain communications are protected under the doctrine of privileged communication.
This means that even if the statement is defamatory, the person who made it may not be liable if the
communication falls under the categories of absolute or qualified privilege.

 Absolute Privilege: This applies to statements made in legislative, judicial, or executive

proceedings, where the freedom of speech is paramount to the functioning of government
institutions.

 Qualified Privilege: This can apply in circumstances such as fair and true reporting in the media
on matters of public interest, or statements made between parties with a legitimate interest in
the information being shared (e.g., employers providing references). However, malice will negate
the protection of qualified privilege.

Cyber Libel: Expanding Defamation to the Digital Realm

With the advent of the internet and social media, defamation has increasingly occurred online, leading
to the recognition of cyber libel under Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012. Cyber libel is essentially the same as libel under the RPC but committed through online platforms,
such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, or other websites.

This form of libel can lead to even harsher penalties because of the far-reaching impact and the
potentially larger audience that online statements can reach. It is important to note that the same
elements—imputation, publication, malice, identifiability, and damage—apply to cyber libel cases.

Filing a Defamation Case: Procedural Steps

If you believe you are a victim of defamation, the first step is to gather evidence to support your claim.
This can include:

 Documenting the Statement: For libel, secure a copy of the written defamatory statement (e.g.,
printed material, screenshot of a social media post). For slander, gather witness testimonies
from people who heard the remark.

 Proof of Damage: Any evidence that shows how the statement negatively affected your
reputation, such as affidavits from people who perceived you differently due to the defamation,
or evidence of lost opportunities (e.g., job loss).

 Filing a Complaint: The victim must file a complaint before the prosecutor’s office. If the
prosecutor finds probable cause, the case may proceed to court. In civil cases, the defamed
person may also seek damages for the harm caused.

Penalties for Defamation in the Philippines

 Libel: The penalty for libel under Article 355 of the RPC is imprisonment ranging from six months
and one day to four years and two months, or a fine, depending on the gravity of the offense.

 Slander: Simple slander carries a penalty of arresto menor (one day to 30 days of imprisonment)
or a fine. Grave slander, however, can result in arresto mayor (one month and one day to six
months) or a higher fine.

For cyber libel, the penalties can be up to six years of imprisonment, in line with the heavier penalties
imposed under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Final Thoughts

Understanding the intricacies of defamation laws in the Philippines is crucial for anyone facing or
accused of libel or slander. It’s essential to seek proper legal guidance to navigate these cases, as the law
places great importance on balancing free speech with the protection of reputation.

Given the evolving nature of defamation, particularly in the digital world, consulting a lawyer
experienced in cybercrime and defamation cases will provide the necessary insight and guidance on how
to proceed.
Certainly! Let's delve deeper into slander by deed, adding more nuances and examples to expand your
understanding:

Characteristics of Slander by Deed:

1. Defamatory Nature of Actions:

o The deed must inherently convey a defamatory meaning, suggesting dishonor,

contempt, or ridicule. These actions are often symbolic and aim to degrade the victim in
the eyes of the public.

2. Relevance of Public Perception:

o The defamatory act must be performed in a way that others can see, hear, or understand
it. The harm lies in how witnesses interpret the action as damaging to the reputation of
the victim.

3. Lack of Justifiable Motive:

o The act must lack a lawful or justifiable reason. If the deed was carried out with good
intentions or for lawful purposes, it might not qualify as slander by deed.

Legal Implications:

 Slander by deed can be grounds for both criminal prosecution (as a form of defamation) and
civil liability (for damages caused to the victim’s reputation).

 Courts may consider factors such as intent, publicity, and the impact of the act on the victim's
social standing.

Broader Examples of Slander by Deed:

1. Public Humiliation:

o Forcing someone to wear a sign or costume that implies wrongdoing (e.g., labeling them
as "thief" or "fraud") in a public setting.

2. Symbolic Acts of Disrespect:

o Destroying someone's property in a way that suggests they are incompetent or

dishonest (e.g., burning a professional's legal documents).
 3. Exaggerated Mockery:

o Creating exaggerated public displays that mimic someone’s alleged faults, with the intent
to mock and discredit them (e.g., staging a theatrical performance that ridicules a
specific individual).

4. Social Media as a Platform:

o In today's digital age, slander by deed can extend to online platforms. Posting videos or
engaging in public actions that symbolize defamation can qualify as slander by deed if
the target is identified and humiliated.

If you’d like, I can help you explore legal cases related to this concept or discuss how slander by deed is
treated under Philippine law specifically! Let me know what you’d like to dive into.
Here’s a 20-item quiz to help students practice identifying the type of defamation involved: libel, oral
defamation (slander), or slander by deed.

Quiz: Identify the Type of Defamation

Instructions: Read each scenario carefully and choose the correct answer: libel, oral defamation, or
slander by deed.

1. A tabloid publishes an article accusing a famous actor of being involved in illegal activities,
tarnishing their reputation.

2. During an argument at a town hall meeting, one participant publicly calls another a "liar and a
cheat."

3. A store manager sends an unsealed, defamatory letter about an employee’s alleged misconduct
through a courier.

4. A person posts defamatory statements about their neighbor on social media, and the post is
shared widely.

5. A co-worker shouts false accusations in front of the entire office, calling their colleague a thief.

6. A political campaign broadcasts a defamatory advertisement targeting an opposing candidate on

television.

7. A person distributes leaflets containing false statements about a competitor’s business practices,
causing reputational damage.

8. A homeowner loudly accuses their neighbor of being an arsonist during a heated argument
outside, in the presence of bystanders.

9. A blogger writes a defamatory article suggesting that a public figure is corrupt, and it becomes
widely read online.

10. In a public ceremony, someone tears up another person’s diploma and announces that they are
unqualified for their profession.
 11. A customer sends an unsealed defamatory note about their landlord to several tenants in the
building, spreading false accusations.

12. A town mayor speaks during a public event, falsely accusing their political rival of embezzling
funds.

13. A television host reads defamatory statements about a celebrity live on air, damaging the
celebrity’s reputation.

14. A disgruntled individual places posters in public spaces falsely accusing a local teacher of
misconduct.

15. A comedian makes defamatory remarks about a political figure during a live show, in front of an
audience.

16. A business owner publishes defamatory claims about a rival company on their official website.

17. A landlord publicly humiliates a tenant by forcing them to wear a sign reading “Irresponsible
Tenant” and parading them in the neighborhood.

18. A radio host falsely states during a live broadcast that a community leader is involved in criminal
activities.

19. Someone whispers to a group of friends at a party that their colleague is involved in fraudulent
practices, damaging the colleague’s reputation.

20. A shopkeeper writes defamatory accusations against a customer on the store’s bulletin board for
all other customers to see.

Answer Key

1.

A. Libel

2.

B. Oral Defamation

3.

A. Libel

4.

A. Libel

5.

B. Oral Defamation

6.
 A. Libel

7.

A. Libel

8.

B. Oral Defamation

9.

A. Libel

10.

C. Slander by Deed

11.

A. Libel

12.

B. Oral Defamation

13.

A. Libel

14.

A. Libel

15.

B. Oral Defamation

16.

A. Libel

17.

C. Slander by Deed

18.

B. Oral Defamation

19.

B. Oral Defamation

20.

A. Libel
Let me know if you'd like to discuss any of these scenarios in detail or if you need more quizzes!