Criminal Liability for “Slander on Messenger” in the Philippines: A Comprehensive Legal Guide
(Updated to the state of Philippine law as of 1 May 2025. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.)
1. The Core Concepts: Defamation, Libel, and Slander
| Term | Statutory basis | Medium | Key penalty range after R.A. 10951 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel (written defamation) | Arts. 353 & 355, Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Any “writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, videocasting, online post, etc.” | Prisión correccional min–max (6 mo + 1 day – 6 yrs) or fine ₱40 000 – ₱1 200 000, or both |
| Cyber-libel | Sec. 4(c)(4), R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Act) in relation to Art. 355 RPC | Defamation “committed through a computer system” (social-media posts, chats, e-mail, Messenger, etc.) | One degree higher ⇒ Prisión mayor min (6 yrs + 1 day – 8 yrs) + fine (judicially-fixed) |
| Slander (oral defamation) | Art. 358 RPC | Spoken words, gestures, or sounds | • Simple slander: Arresto menor or arresto mayor (1 day – 6 mo) or fine ≤ ₱20 000 • Grave slander: Arresto mayor max to prisión correccional min (4 mo + 1 day – 2 yrs + 4 mo) or fine ₱20 000 – ₱100 000 |
Bottom line: Once the defamatory matter is transmitted in writing or in any electronic form, Philippine jurisprudence treats it as libel (or cyber-libel), even if the same words would have been “slander” had they been merely spoken in person.
2. Is a Facebook Messenger Message “Slander” or “Libel”?
- Text or image in Messenger – always written, so the proper charge is libel (Art. 355) or cyber-libel (R.A. 10175).
- Voice call or voice note sent via Messenger – the message is spoken, but the transmission uses a computer system. Prosecutors have two options:
- Ordinary slander (Art. 358) if they focus on the spoken character and the penalty sought does not exceed prisión correccional.
- Cyber-libel if they view the electronic medium as controlling. The Supreme Court, in Disini v. DOJ (2014) and subsequent cyber-libel cases, endorsed the “network-based” approach, so cyber-libel is increasingly the default.
In practice, the complainant often lets the prosecutor decide which statute affords a stronger case and higher penalty.
3. Elements the Prosecution Must Prove
| Element | Libel / Cyber-libel | Slander |
|---|---|---|
| Defamatory imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or dishonorable act | ✔ | ✔ |
| Malice (presumed; defendant may rebut by showing good motives / justifiable ends) | ✔ | ✔ |
| Publication – communication to at least one third person | ✔ (anyone who can read the chat/post) | ✔ (at least one person must hear) |
| Identifiability – injured party is recognizable | ✔ | ✔ |
| Use of a computer system | ✔ (cyber-libel only) | ✖ |
4. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
- Grave vs. simple slander – Words are grave when intrinsically insulting (“puta,” “magnanakaw,” etc.), addressed to a person of authority, or uttered in a humiliating context.
- Qualified privileged communication – e.g., reporting a crime to the police, job-performance evaluations, or fair commentaries on public figures are not actionable unless shown to be in malice.
- Truth – Complete defense only if the imputation is a crime or causes the dismissal of a public officer and it is proven with good motives (Art. 361 RPC).
- Spontaneity / anger – May lower the penalty from grave to simple slander.
5. Venue and Jurisdiction
| Case type | Investigative office | Trial court |
|---|---|---|
| Simple slander | City/Provincial Prosecutor where words were uttered or where complainant resides | Municipal/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Court depending on penalty sought |
| Grave slander | Same | Regional Trial Court (since max penalty exceeds 6 months) |
| Cyber-libel | Cybercrime Office of DOJ, NBI-CCD, or PNP-ACG | Designated Regional Trial Court as Cybercrime Court (Sec. 21, R.A. 10175) |
For purely online offenses, venue may also be the place where the complainant resides when the message was accessed.
6. Prescription (Time-bar)
| Offense | Prescriptive period (Art. 90 RPC) |
|---|---|
| Slander (oral defamation) | 6 months from date of utterance or discovery |
| Libel (written) | 1 year |
| Cyber-libel | 15 years (because penalty is prisión mayor, an afflictive penalty, per Art. 90 ¶2 as interpreted in People v. Tuluyang and DOJ Circular 008-2020) |
7. Standard Case-Building Checklist for the Complainant
- Secure evidence early
- Screenshots (include URL/time-stamps).
- Downloaded chat logs or voice-note files.
- Affidavit of another participant establishing receipt of the message.
- Execute a Sworn Affidavit-Complaint stating the exact words, context, and the defamatory imputations.
- Bring digital devices to NBI-Cybercrime Division or PNP-ACG for cloning and preparation of a Forensic Report (helps authenticate metadata).
- File with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (or the DOJ-Cybercrime Office for cyber-libel).
- Attend clarificatory hearings; supply witnesses.
- Monitor resolution; if probable cause is found, an Information is filed in court and a warrant may issue.
8. Defenses for the Respondent
- Absence of publication – message sent only to the complainant.
- Unintelligible / rhetorical flourishes – “Binola ko lang” type hyperbole may negate defamatory meaning.
- Consented statements – private banter where the supposed victim willingly participated.
- Lack of malice – good-faith warning about a person’s conduct, especially if the message was sent only to someone with a legitimate interest (qualified privilege).
- Prescription – filing done beyond the six-month (slander) or one-year (libel) period.
- Violation of the Cybercrime law’s chain-of-custody requirements (for cyber-libel).
9. Possible Civil Liability
Under Art. 33 of the Civil Code, a separate and independent civil action for damages may be filed, even if the respondent is acquitted criminally, on proof of defamation by preponderance of evidence. Typical damages sought:
- Moral (mental anguish, wounded feelings)
- Exemplary (to deter similar acts)
- Actual (if direct pecuniary loss is proven)
10. Special Notes on Compromise and Alternative Remedies
- Affidavit of Desistance / Compromise – Slander is public in nature; the prosecutor may still pursue the case, but in practice, many slander and libel cases are settled through a public apology and payment of damages.
- Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (R.A. 9262) – When the defamatory messages are part of a pattern of harassment against an intimate partner, the harsher, non-bailable VAWC charge may apply.
- Safe Spaces Act (R.A. 11313) – For gender-based online sexual harassment, the PWC and Safe Spaces penalties (fine + community service) may be preferred.
11. Penalty Scenarios Illustrated
| Scenario | Likely charge | Usual penalty range |
|---|---|---|
| Drunk rant in group voice chat calling another “magnanakaw” | Grave slander or cyber-libel | 4 mo + 1 day – 2 yrs + 4 mo OR 6 yrs + 1 day – 8 yrs |
| One-on-one Messenger text: “Isa kang bayarang babae” with screenshot forwarded by recipient | Libel or cyber-libel | 6 mo + 1 day – 6 yrs OR 6 yrs + 1 day – 8 yrs |
| Large FB group post labelling a business “scammers, beware” | Cyber-libel | 6 yrs + 1 day – 8 yrs (+ possible ₱ >1 M fine) |
Courts look at the gravity, reach of publication, and actual malice in fixing penalties within the range.
12. Practical Take-Aways
- The moment defamatory content touches a digital platform, expect prosecutors to charge “cyber-libel,” not “slander.”
- Six-month prescription applies only to truly oral defamation (e.g., live Zoom or voice call not recorded or retransmitted).
- Complain early and preserve evidence; metadata can quickly disappear on Messenger.
- Consider mediation; criminal defamation cases often end in compromise to avoid jail exposure.
- Truth is not enough—you must show good motives and justifiable ends to defeat malice.
13. Checklist at a Glance
☐ Preserve chat/voice evidence
☐ Draft Affidavit-Complaint within 6 months (slander) or 1 year (libel)
☐ Submit devices for forensic imaging (cyber-libel)
☐ File in proper venue
☐ Prepare witnesses to prove publication and malice
☐ Explore settlement options early
Conclusion
While “slander on Messenger” sounds like a straightforward oral-defamation case, Philippine law’s focus on the medium transforms most chat-based insults into libel or cyber-libel, carrying far heavier penalties and a longer prescriptive period. Understanding the subtle distinctions—particularly the six-month vs. one-year vs. fifteen-year time bars, the venue rules, and the availability of privileged communication defenses—can spell the difference between quick dismissal and a costly criminal conviction. Always consult a qualified Philippine lawyer to tailor any legal action or defense to the specific facts of your case.