A practical, Philippine-specific legal explainer

1) What counts as “defamation” under Philippine law?

Defamation is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act/omission/condition that tends to dishonor, discredit, or put someone in contempt. In the Philippines, it is addressed in two parallel tracks:

Criminal defamation under the Revised Penal Code (RPC):
- Libel (Art. 353–362): written or similarly permanent form (e.g., articles, posts, photos with captions, memes, emails).
- Slander (Art. 358): oral defamation (spoken words).
- Slander by deed (Art. 359): acts (not words) that cast dishonor (e.g., humiliating gestures).
Civil defamation (tort): independent civil action for defamation under Article 33 of the Civil Code, with damages governed by Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 2199, 2200–2208, 2217, 2229, etc.

Key elements (criminal libel): (1) defamatory imputation; (2) publication (communication to at least one third person); (3) identifiability of the offended party (by name, description, photo, tag, context); and (4) malice (presumed by law for defamatory imputations, except when the communication is privileged or the accused proves “good motives and justifiable ends”).

2) The special case of online defamation (cyber libel)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) treats online libel as a cybercrime if the defamation is committed through a computer system or the internet (social media, blogs, websites, group chats, etc.). Penalties for cyber libel are one degree higher than for ordinary libel. Courts have also clarified that mere “liking” or “reacting” is not, by itself, criminal libel; however, original authors (and those who republish with new defamatory content or intent) can face liability. Screenshots, metadata, and platform records are commonly used to prove authorship, publication, and reach.

3) Defenses and privileges

Truth plus good motives and justifiable ends (RPC, Art. 361):
- Truth alone is not enough in criminal libel. The accused must show truth + good motives + justifiable ends (e.g., to correct wrongdoing, protect public interest).
- In civil cases, truth is generally a complete defense if no independent wrongful act (e.g., abuse of rights) is shown.
Privileged communications (Art. 354 exceptions & jurisprudence):
- Absolutely privileged: statements made in the course of official legislative/judicial proceedings by those who must speak (e.g., pleadings, testimony)—not actionable even if malicious, provided relevant.
- Qualifiedly privileged (actionable only upon proof of actual malice by the complainant):
  - Fair and true report of official proceedings or statements by public officers in the performance of duty.
  - Private communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty (e.g., a good-faith complaint to a supervisor about misconduct).
  - Fair comment on matters of public interest and on the public acts of public officers/figures. Honest opinion, even if harsh, is protected; deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for truth are not.
Lack of malice / good faith:
- The law presumes malice for defamatory imputations, but the presumption is rebutted when the communication is privileged, or where evidence shows diligent verification, neutral reporting, or other indicators of good faith.
No defamatory meaning / ambiguity:
- If the words are not defamatory, are opinion (clearly labeled and based on disclosed facts), are humor/satire that no reasonable reader would take as factual assertion, or are substantially true, the case fails.
Non-identifiability / no publication:
- If the person cannot be reasonably identified, or if the statement was never communicated to a third person, the cause of action does not arise.
Retraction/apology/mitigation:
- These do not erase liability but can mitigate criminal penalties or reduce damages.

4) Who can be liable?

Author, editor, publisher, owner, business manager (RPC Art. 360) and, for online posts, the original poster and anyone who republishes with new defamatory content or intent.
Platforms and service providers generally have a different liability regime; mere passive hosting is treated differently from authorship or editorial control (nuances apply).

5) Penalties (criminal) and damages (civil)

Criminal (as amended by R.A. 10951)

Libel (Art. 355): prisión correccional in its minimum to medium periods or a fine (now substantially increased by R.A. 10951). Courts often weigh circumstances and may prefer fines over imprisonment.
Slander (Art. 358): penalty ranges from arresto mayor (months) to prisión correccional (up to a couple of years), with updated fines.
Slander by deed (Art. 359): similar range, depending on gravity.
Cyber libel: penalty one degree higher than ordinary libel.

Exact durations and fine bands depend on the article violated and judicial discretion. Judges also consider mitigating/aggravating circumstances (RPC Arts. 13–14).

Civil (under the Civil Code)

A victim may sue independently under Article 33 for damages, regardless of the criminal case’s outcome. Recoverable damages include:

Actual/compensatory damages (Art. 2199) for proven pecuniary loss (e.g., lost contracts).
Moral damages (Art. 2217) for mental anguish, wounded feelings, social humiliation.
Exemplary damages (Art. 2229) to deter egregious conduct.
Attorney’s fees and costs (Art. 2208), when justified.

6) Public officials and public figures: the actual malice standard

For public officials and public figures on matters of public concern, Philippine jurisprudence applies the “actual malice” rule (inspired by New York Times v. Sullivan): the complainant must prove the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of its truth. This protects robust debate and investigative reporting. Ordinary private-figure disputes do not require the complainant to prove actual malice (the statutory presumption applies unless rebutted or a privilege attaches).

7) Venue and jurisdiction

Written defamation (print-era rule): case may be filed where the material was printed and first published or where the private offended party resides; for public officers, where they hold office.
Oral defamation: typically where the defamatory words were uttered.
Online defamation: prosecutors often lay venue where any essential element occurred (e.g., where the offended party resides and the post was accessed), but litigants should expect venue challenges and pay close attention to evolving jurisprudence and Supreme Court circulars.
Court level: Libel cases typically fall under Regional Trial Courts given the penalty range; civil actions for damages depend on the amount claimed (jurisdictional thresholds apply).

8) Prescription (time limits)

Criminal libel: 1 year from the date of publication (RPC Art. 90).
Criminal slander / slander by deed: 6 months (Art. 90).
Civil defamation (tort/Art. 33): 4 years from accrual of the cause of action (Civil Code Art. 1146).
Cyber libel: practitioners frequently argue prescription by analogy to libel; always compute conservatively and file early, as jurisprudential nuances exist.

Multiple publication rule: Each fresh publication can, in some contexts, trigger its own prescriptive period; updates/edits to online posts may be treated as new publications depending on facts.

9) Evidence and proof strategy

Defamatory meaning: Courts read words in their plain, natural, and ordinary sense, including captions, hashtags, emojis, photos, and context (thread timing, audience).
Identification: Names, usernames, handles, photos, initials, job titles, or descriptive context can suffice.
Publication: Any communication to a third person—post visibility settings, shares, group size, and reach may matter.
Malice / good faith: Show due diligence (verification steps, right-of-reply attempts, reliance on official records), absence of ill will, and neutral language.
Electronic evidence: The Rules on Electronic Evidence allow electronic documents, printouts of electronic data, metadata, and platform certificates to prove authorship, timestamps, and integrity. Preserve originals, take forensically sound screenshots, and consider subpoena duces tecum to platforms.

10) Remedies and reliefs

Criminal complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (affidavit-complaint plus evidence).
Civil action (damages) under Article 33—can proceed independently of the criminal case.
Interim measures:
- Hold-order / preliminary investigation in criminal cases.
- Interim damages aren’t standard, but preliminary injunctions in defamation are rare due to prior restraint concerns under the Constitution’s free speech clause. Courts are cautious about gag orders or takedown directives before final judgment.
Post-judgment relief: Damages, fines, and in criminal cases, possible imprisonment (often replaced or mitigated by fines), plus published apologies/retractions where appropriate.

11) Corporate, newsroom, and platform considerations

Vicarious and editorial responsibility: Editors, publishers, station managers, and business managers can be criminally charged under Article 360; implement pre-publication review, fact-checking protocols, and right-of-reply practices.
Compliance playbook: retain counsel review for high-risk pieces; document verification steps; preserve notes and recordings; respond promptly to demand letters without admitting liability; consider corrections or clarifications when warranted.
Data privacy & related laws: Defamation disputes frequently intersect with Data Privacy Act issues (e.g., doxxing), Anti-Wiretapping Act (illegal recordings), and Unjust Vexation or Intriguing Against Honor (other RPC offenses).

12) Practical checklists

For a potential complainant

Within time limits, gather:
- URLs, full screenshots (with date/time, device clock visible), archive links if available.
- Eyewitness statements for oral defamation.
- Proof of identifiability, publication, and harm (lost clients, HR memos, clinic records for anxiety, etc.).
Decide track(s): criminal, civil, or both.
Consider settlement (retraction/apology) vs. public vindication.

For a potential respondent

Preserve all materials; avoid deleting posts (spoliation issues).
Identify defenses: truth; privilege; opinion/fair comment; lack of identifiability/publication; lack of malice; good-faith verification.
Consider swift clarifications or corrections; channel communications through counsel.

13) FAQs

Is calling someone a “criminal” without proof defamatory? Potentially yes; accusing someone of a crime is classically defamatory unless you can prove truth and good motives/justifiable ends (criminal) or truth (civil).

Are opinions protected? Yes, pure opinion on disclosed facts is generally protected. But false statements of fact masquerading as opinion are not.

Can I be sued for sharing someone else’s defamatory post? Forwarding or sharing can create fresh publication exposure if you adopt or add defamatory content, or republish with intent. Context matters.

Is there a “right to be forgotten”? There’s no general right to erasure in defamation law. Data privacy rules may create separate remedies, but they are distinct from defamation.

Is there an anti-SLAPP law for defamation? No general anti-SLAPP statute. Only environmental cases have an anti-SLAPP rule; journalists/critics rely on constitutional defenses and privileges.

14) Bottom line

Defamation in the Philippines straddles criminal and civil regimes.
Malice is presumed but can be rebutted; robust defenses exist, especially for public issues and fair comment.
Cyber libel raises the stakes (higher penalties, digital evidence).
Filing and venue rules, prescription periods, and privilege doctrines can make or break a case—timing and documentation are crucial.

Lawyer’s note (not legal advice)

This guide summarizes core doctrines and typical practice points. Philippine defamation law evolves with new Supreme Court decisions (especially on cyber libel, venue, and prescription). For a live matter, consult counsel to map facts to the latest rulings and procedural rules.