I. Executive Summary

When a person is falsely accused of oral defamation (slander) in the Philippines, there are two tracks to consider:

Defend and seek early termination of the oral defamation case (at the prosecutor or trial level).
Counter through (a) criminal complaints (e.g., perjury, false testimony, incriminating an innocent person) where elements are met, and/or (b) a civil action for malicious prosecution and related torts under the Civil Code once the criminal case terminates in your favor.

Careful timing, element-by-element pleading, and evidence management are critical. Statements made to law-enforcement or in pleadings are usually qualifiedly privileged, which affects both defense and countercharge strategy.

II. Primer on Oral Defamation

A. Nature of the Offense

Oral defamation (slander) punishes defamatory spoken words that impute a discreditable act, condition, or status, tending to dishonor, discredit, or put a person in contempt.
Grave vs simple oral defamation depends on context: language used, occasion, relationship of parties, and the degree of imputation. Courts consider whether the insult strikes at character and reputation, the setting (e.g., public vs private), and any provocation.

B. Defenses to Oral Defamation

Truth + good motive/justifiable end (truth alone is not enough; good motives must concur).
Qualifiedly privileged communications, e.g., good-faith complaints to authorities, statements made in the regular course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and fair and true reports on matters of public interest.
- In qualified privilege, malice is not presumed; the complainant must prove actual malice.
Self-defense of honor, momentary outburst, and contextual mitigation (may downgrade to simple slander or support acquittal).

C. Prescriptive Considerations

Defamation offenses carry short prescriptive periods. Prompt action—both in defending and in any responsive filings—is essential.

III. The “False Complaint” Problem

A “false complaint” can mean:

The allegations are factually untrue; and/or
The complainant filed the case with malice and without probable cause.

These are legally distinct. Falsity of allegations may support perjury/false testimony (if under oath and material), while malice + lack of probable cause—after a favorable termination—supports a civil action for malicious prosecution.

IV. Procedural Playbook When You’re Falsely Accused

A. At the Prosecutor’s Office (Inquest or PI)

Immediate counsel and document preservation (messages, call logs, CCTV, witnesses).
Counter-Affidavit (and Reply-Affidavit if allowed):
- Attack defamation elements (no defamatory imputation; context negates defamation; not “published” to third persons; words not actionable).
- Assert privilege, truth + good motive, or lack of malice.
- Attach documentary/affidavit evidence.
Move for Dismissal for lack of probable cause; stress inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.

B. During Trial (If Information Is Filed)

File motion to quash (jurisdiction/defect in information) where warranted.
Consider demurrer to evidence after prosecution rests (criminal standard: proof beyond reasonable doubt).
Maintain a separate evidence log for potential counter-cases.

C. After Dismissal/Acquittal

Evaluate countermeasures (criminal and/or civil). Sequence matters (see Section VII).

V. Potential Criminal Countercharges

Caution: Filing a criminal countercharge prematurely can backfire. Assess elements, materiality, and oath requirements, and consider waiting for a favorable termination of the defamation case where appropriate.

1) Perjury (False testimony under oath in an affidavit/complaint)

Elements (practical formulation):

A statement under oath before a competent officer authorized to administer oaths;
Willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood on a material matter;
The oath is required by law or for a legal purpose;
Malice inferred from willful falsehood; good faith is a defense.

Use case: The complainant’s sworn complaint-affidavit or judicial affidavit contains material false statements you can disprove objectively (e.g., time/place impossibility, documentary contradiction).

2) False Testimony (in criminal or civil proceedings)

Lies on the stand (or in judicial affidavits adopted in testimony) on material points.
Requires showing willful falsity; contradictions must be established through transcripts, exhibits, or clear impeaching proofs.

3) Incriminating an Innocent Person

Penalizes acts that directly and maliciously cause authorities to incriminate an innocent person without lawful authority (e.g., fabricated evidence, orchestrated setup).
Strong fit where there is manufacture or planting of evidence, not merely conflicting recollections.

4) Other Penal Statutes Potentially Engaged

Obstruction of Justice (e.g., willfully giving false information to impede investigation).
Intriguing against honor (malicious intrigues to blemish reputation), though often eclipsed by the defamation framework.

VI. Civil Remedies: Malicious Prosecution & Allied Torts

A. Malicious Prosecution (Independent civil action)

Elements (practical):

Defendant instituted a criminal action against plaintiff;
The action was terminated in plaintiff’s favor (dismissal, acquittal, or final termination not inconsistent with innocence);
Absence of probable cause at the time of institution; and
Malice (improper motive) in instituting the action.

Relief: Moral, exemplary, and actual damages; attorney’s fees and costs where warranted. Moral damages are expressly recoverable for malicious prosecution.

Timing rule: File after favorable termination of the criminal case. Filing earlier risks dismissal for prematurity and inconsistent positions.

B. Abuse of Rights / Human Relations (Civil Code)

Article 19 (act with justice, give everyone his due, observe honesty and good faith).
Article 20 (whoever willfully or negligently causes damage in violation of law shall indemnify).
Article 21 (acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy causing damage). Used to net wrongful conduct that does not fit neatly elsewhere or to augment malicious prosecution claims.

VII. Strategic Timing & Sequencing

Primary goal: Kill the oral defamation case early (no probable cause; fatal variances; privilege; context).
Perjury/false testimony:
- If based on a sworn complaint-affidavit, you may file once you’ve secured objective proofs of falsity and materiality. Many practitioners, however, assess prosecutorial posture first to avoid prejudicing the dismissal.
Malicious prosecution: Only after favorable termination. Prepare the civil case while the criminal case winds down (collect billings, receipts, time logs, and pain-and-suffering narratives).

VIII. Privileged Communications & Why “Counter-Defamation” Often Fails

Statements in pleadings or complaints to authorities are generally qualifiedly privileged.
This privilege does not immunize perjury (truthfulness under oath is still required), but it complicates a retaliatory libel/slander case against the complainant.
To overcome the privilege in a defamation counter-suit, you must show actual malice and unprivileged publication (e.g., the complainant publicized the accusations to third parties or social media beyond what the proceeding required).

IX. Evidence Architecture for Countercharges

Affidavits and Transcripts: Secure certified copies (complaint-affidavit, judicial affidavits, stenographic notes).
Objective Contradictions: CCTV, geo-tagged photos, phone metadata, transport receipts, time logs.
Corroboration: Neutral eyewitnesses; official records (e.g., logbooks).
Materiality Map: Tie each false statement to a material issue (identity, time, place, utterance, presence of third persons).
Damages Dossier: Keep medical/psych records (stress, anxiety), employment/business losses, attorney’s fees, and out-of-pocket expenses to support civil claims.

X. Pleading Guides (Skeletons)

A. Criminal Complaint for Perjury

Parties & Jurisdiction
Allegations: Identify the oath, the competent officer, the material statement, and how it is false; attach documentary proof.
Willfulness: Facts showing deliberate falsehood (e.g., prior inconsistent sworn statements, timestamps).
Prayer: Filing of information; issuance of processes.

B. Civil Complaint for Malicious Prosecution

Parties & Venue
Material Facts: Institution of the prior criminal case, its favorable termination, lack of probable cause (e.g., no witness, pure hearsay), and malice (animus, prior grudge, extortion motive).
Damages: Particularize moral, exemplary, actual, and attorney’s fees.
Prayer.

XI. Common Pitfalls & Practitioner Tips

Premature counter-filings: Filing malicious prosecution before favorable termination invites dismissal.
Overreliance on “falsity”: Not all inconsistencies are perjury; falsity must be willful, material, and under oath.
Ignoring privilege: A counter-defamation suit over complaint statements often fails without proof of actual malice and unprivileged publication.
Neglecting prescription: Defamation and perjury-related offenses have short limitations. Calendar deadlines.
Proof gaps: Courts disfavor “he-said-she-said” without objective anchors. Build paper-heavy records.

XII. Election-Related Overtones (If the setting is political)

Campaign-season accusations may trigger election offense dimensions (separate from defamation).
Be alive to jurisdictional overlaps (COMELEC vs DOJ/regular courts) and preserve forum discipline.

XIII. Remedies Matrix (Quick Reference)

Scenario	Criminal Countercharge?	Civil Action?	Earliest Safe Timing
Sworn complaint with provably false, material allegation	Perjury (and/or false testimony if in court)	Possible later malicious prosecution	Perjury: after gathering clear proofs; Malicious prosecution: after favorable termination
Fabricated evidence / setup	Incriminating an innocent person; possibly obstruction	Malicious prosecution + Art. 19/20/21	After evidence collection; MP: post-termination
Complaint statements privately filed with authorities only	Counter-defamation usually weak (privileged)	Malicious prosecution viable if elements met	MP: post-termination
Public smear (press or social media) repeating the charge	Libel (written) or oral defamation (if video/audio) separate from case filings	Damages under Civil Code	As soon as elements/prescription allow

XIV. Ethical & Strategic Considerations

Proportionality: Countercharges should be element-tight, not retaliatory for its own sake.
Settlement Windows: Consider retraction/apology, especially where context suggests misunderstanding rather than malice.
Client Counseling: Manage expectations; civil damages depend on proof of injury and credibility.

XV. Takeaways

A false oral defamation complaint is best answered first with a strong defense targeting elements, privilege, and probable cause.
Perjury/false testimony and incriminating an innocent person are viable criminal countercharges when their strict elements are met.
A civil action for malicious prosecution becomes available after the criminal case ends favorably and requires lack of probable cause and malice.
Because complaint statements are generally qualifiedly privileged, a retaliatory defamation suit often fails unless there is actual malice and unprivileged publication.
Timing, evidence, and prescription drive outcomes—plan the sequencing from Day 1.

If you’d like, I can draft sample complaint-affidavit templates (perjury and incriminating an innocent person) and a civil malicious prosecution complaint with fill-in fields for facts, annex lists, and prayer.