Being Sued for Calling Someone a “Scammer”: Slander, Defamation, and Defenses in the Philippines

Introduction

In the Philippines, freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected right under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press. However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the protection of one's honor, reputation, and privacy. Defamation laws serve as a mechanism to safeguard individuals from false and damaging statements. A common scenario involves accusations of fraud or deceit, such as labeling someone a "scammer." If such a statement leads to a lawsuit, it typically falls under the categories of slander or libel, governed primarily by the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of 1930, as amended.

This article explores the legal framework surrounding defamation in the Philippine context, focusing on slander as it pertains to oral statements like calling someone a "scammer." It delves into the elements of the offense, potential liabilities, defenses available to the accused, procedural aspects, and relevant jurisprudence. Understanding these can help individuals navigate the fine line between protected speech and actionable defamation.

Defining Defamation: Libel vs. Slander

Defamation in the Philippines is criminalized under Articles 353 to 362 of the RPC. It is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect—whether real or imaginary—that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

• Libel: This refers to written or printed defamation, including any defamatory matter expressed in writing, printing, engraving, or any similar means. It is punishable under Article 355 of the RPC.

• Slander (Oral Defamation): Slander, also known as oral defamation, involves spoken words that impute a defamatory meaning. Article 358 of the RPC distinguishes between two types:

  • Serious Slander: Involves imputations of a serious nature, such as accusing someone of a crime that could lead to imprisonment or severe social ostracism.
  • Simple Slander: Covers less grave imputations, like words of contempt or insult that do not rise to the level of serious defamation.

Calling someone a "scammer" typically constitutes slander if spoken, as it imputes the commission of fraud or estafa (a crime under Articles 315-316 of the RPC), which is a serious offense involving deceit and damage to another. If the statement is made in writing (e.g., via social media, email, or text), it may qualify as libel or even cyberlibel under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which enhances penalties for online defamation.

The key distinction is the medium: oral for slander, written or electronic for libel. However, the substance—imputing dishonesty—remains the core issue.

Elements of Defamation

To establish a case of defamation, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

1. Imputation of a Crime, Vice, or Defect: The statement must attribute to the complainant a criminal act, moral turpitude, or some flaw that harms their reputation. Labeling someone a "scammer" directly imputes fraud, which is a crime under Philippine law.

2. Publicity: The imputation must be communicated to at least one third person other than the complainant. Private conversations between two individuals do not constitute defamation unless overheard or relayed. In public settings, such as social gatherings or online platforms, publicity is easily met.

3. Malice: This is presumed in defamatory statements unless proven otherwise. Malice can be:

   • Actual Malice: Intent to injure or knowledge of falsity with reckless disregard for the truth.
   • Malice in Law: Inferred from the defamatory nature of the words themselves, without need for further proof.

4. Identifiability: The complainant must be identifiable as the target of the statement. Even if not named explicitly, innuendos or descriptions that clearly point to the person suffice.

In cases like calling someone a "scammer," courts examine the context: Was it said in anger during a dispute, or as part of a public warning? The Supreme Court in cases such as People v. Aquino (G.R. No. 201092, 2012) has emphasized that words must be construed in their ordinary meaning and in the context uttered.

Penalties for Defamation

Penalties vary based on the type and gravity:

• Slander (Oral Defamation):

  • Serious: Arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months imprisonment) and/or a fine.
  • Simple: Arresto menor (1 day to 1 month) or a fine not exceeding P200 (adjusted for inflation in practice).

• Libel: Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) or a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000, or both.

Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, if the defamation is committed online, penalties increase by one degree, potentially leading to longer imprisonment.

Civil liability may also arise under Article 33 of the Civil Code, allowing for damages (actual, moral, exemplary) independent of the criminal case. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of cyberlibel provisions, noting they do not violate free speech when malice is present.

Defenses Against Defamation Claims

Defendants in defamation suits have several defenses rooted in constitutional protections and statutory privileges. These can lead to acquittal or dismissal if successfully invoked.

1. Truth as a Defense (Article 354, RPC):

   • Truth is an absolute defense only if the imputation is made with good motives and for justifiable ends. For instance, if the accused can prove the person is indeed a scammer (e.g., via court convictions or evidence of fraud), and the statement was made to warn others (justifiable end), it may not be defamatory.
   • However, truth alone is insufficient for private matters unrelated to public interest. In Borjal v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466, 1999), the Court ruled that even true statements can be actionable if motivated by ill will.

2. Privileged Communications (Article 354, RPC):

   • Absolute Privilege: Applies to statements made in official proceedings, such as legislative debates, judicial testimonies, or executive communications. These are immune from suit.
   • Qualified Privilege: Covers fair and accurate reports of public proceedings, or statements made in good faith on matters of public interest. For example, a journalist reporting on a scam without malice may be protected.

3. Fair Comment or Criticism:

   • Protected under free speech, this allows opinions on public figures or matters of public concern. In U.S. v. Bustos (37 Phil. 731, 1918), the Court held that criticism of public officials is privileged if based on facts and without malice.
   • Calling a public figure a "scammer" in the context of exposing corruption might qualify, but for private individuals, the threshold is higher.

4. Lack of Malice or Intent:

   • If the statement was made in jest, hyperbole, or without intent to harm, it may not constitute defamation. Courts consider the "innuendo" doctrine, where words are interpreted in context.
   • In People v. Larosa (G.R. No. 199483, 2014), the Supreme Court acquitted a defendant for lack of malice in a heated argument.

5. Consent or Waiver:

   • If the complainant consented to the statement or waived their right (e.g., in a mutual exchange of insults), it might mitigate liability.

6. Prescription:

   • Criminal actions for defamation prescribe after one year from discovery (Article 90, RPC). Civil actions under the Civil Code prescribe after four years.

Other defenses include challenging jurisdiction (venue is where the statement was first published or heard) or arguing that the statement does not meet the elements (e.g., no publicity).

Procedural Aspects of a Defamation Lawsuit

1. Filing a Complaint: The offended party files a complaint-affidavit with the prosecutor's office for preliminary investigation. If probable cause is found, an information is filed in court.

2. Trial: Defamation cases are heard in Municipal or Regional Trial Courts, depending on penalties. The accused can post bail.

3. Burden of Proof: Prosecution bears the initial burden, but defenses shift some onus to the defendant (e.g., proving truth).

4. Settlement: Many cases are resolved via affidavit of desistance or compromise, especially if retraction and apology are offered.

5. Appeals: Decisions can be appealed to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Notable cases include Tulfo v. People (G.R. No. 161032, 2007), where a broadcaster was convicted for libel but highlighted the need for actual malice in public interest matters, and Santos v. People (G.R. No. 235593, 2018), reinforcing that online posts amplify publicity.

Special Considerations in the Digital Age

With the rise of social media, calling someone a "scammer" online shifts the case to cyberlibel, with venue flexibility (filed where the complainant resides or works). Republic Act No. 10175 imposes higher penalties and allows for warrantless arrests in flagrante delicto. However, the law decriminalized libel in 2023 amendments for certain cases, but slander remains criminal.

Privacy laws like Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act) may intersect if the statement involves personal data, potentially leading to additional claims.

Conclusion

Defamation laws in the Philippines, particularly slander for oral accusations like "scammer," underscore the tension between free expression and reputational rights. While penalties can be severe, robust defenses ensure that truthful, privileged, or fair statements are protected. Individuals should exercise caution in their words, especially in public or digital forums, and consult legal counsel if facing or contemplating such a suit. Awareness of these principles promotes responsible discourse in society.