Criminal Defamation for Verbal Abuse and Insults in the Philippines
A comprehensive legal article (May 2025)
Disclaimer: This material is for general information only and is not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for specific cases.
1 | Conceptual Framework
“Criminal defamation” in Philippine law covers libel (written/broadcast) and slander (oral/gestural), both found in Articles 353–362 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Verbal abuse or insults—including heated name-calling—may amount to slander (oral defamation) or slander by deed, depending on whether the affront is spoken or acted out.
2 | Statutory Bases
| Provision | Conduct Punished | Core Penalty* (post-RA 10951, 2017) |
|---|---|---|
| Art 353 (Definition) | Imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or circumstance tending to dishonour a person. | — |
| Art 355 (Libel) | Written, printed, broadcast or similar defamation. | Prisión correccional min.–med. or ₱40 000 – ₱1 200 000 fine. |
| Art 358 (Slander) | Spoken defamation. • Grave: serious insult • Slight: light insult |
• Grave: Prisión correccional min. or ₱20 000 – ₱100 000 • Slight: Arresto menor (1 – 30 days) or ≤ ₱20 000 |
| Art 359 (Slander by Deed) | Defamatory acts (e.g., spitting in someone’s face) meant to dishonour. | Same scale as Art 358. |
| Art 360 (Venue & procedure) | Specifies where actions are filed; requires complainant’s sworn statement. | — |
| RA 10175 §4(c)(4) (Cyber-libel) | Libel “committed through a computer system”. | Penalty one degree higher than Art 355 (i.e., prisión correccional med.–max.). |
* Monetary ranges under RA 10951 replaced the obsolete 1930 fines.
3 | Key Elements (Art 358)
- Defamatory imputation – words must tend to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt.
- Publicity – heard by at least 1 third person.
- Malice – presumed unless the utterance is privileged or falls under the “fair-comment” doctrine.
- Identifiability – person defamed must be identifiable, even by innuendo.
4 | Grave vs. Slight Oral Defamation
The distinction is qualitative, judged by:
- Language used (e.g., “puta” vs. “bastos”).
- Timing & place (e.g., in court vs. street).
- Social standing of parties.
- Context – angered outburst may still be grave if reputation-destroying.
Jurisprudence: People v. Reyes, G.R. L-21536 (1968) – “Putang-ina mo” hurled at a judge in public = grave oral defamation. Reyes v. People, G.R. 212333 ( 7 Mar 2018) – “Gago ka, magnanakaw” to a barangay chair during a session = grave. De Leon v. People, G.R. 195655 ( 4 Dec 2019) – heated exchange in a private hallway = slight; court emphasized spontaneity and lack of third-party audience.
5 | Slander by Deed (Art 359)
Acts unaccompanied by words—throwing a glass of water, slapping, tearing someone’s ID—can be criminal defamation if the dominant purpose is to disgrace, not to inflict physical harm (else physical injuries applies).
6 | Defences & Privileges
| Category | Scope | Leading Authorities |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute privilege | Legislative debates (Const., Art VI §11), pleadings & testimony while under oath, official reports. | Flores v. Matalam, G.R. 32190 (1979) |
| Qualified privilege | Fair & true report of official acts; fair comment on matters of public interest; intra-family or intra-corporate communication made in good faith. | Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 118971 ( 15 Sep 1999) |
| Justification (Truth) | Allowed only if (a) the imputation is true and (b) it was made with good motives & for justifiable ends (Art 361). | People v. Velasco, 64 Phil 612 (1937) |
| Lack of malice / rhetorical hyperbole | “Boobuwit”, “epal”, “ingrato” may be treated as non-actionable figures of speech, esp. in political discourse. | Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 126466 ( 14 Jan 1999); Tulfo v. People, G.R. 229118 ( 5 Apr 2022) |
Public figures & officers: burden shifts—actual malice must be proved (New York Times rule as applied locally in Borjal and Vasquez).
7 | Penalties & Ancillary Liabilities
- Imprisonment or fine (see §2 table). Courts increasingly prefer fines per People v. Castor, A.M. RTJ-21-029 (2023) to avoid chilling speech.
- Civil damages – Article 33, Civil Code grants a separate tort action.
- Subsidiary imprisonment if only a fine is imposed and remains unpaid (Art 39 RPC).
- Civil indemnity in the criminal case itself (Art 100 RPC).
8 | Procedural Nuggets
| Topic | Rule |
|---|---|
| Venue (Art 360) | Where the offended party resides at filing or where the words were uttered. For public officers, also where stationed. |
| Who may file | Only the offended party, parents, grandparents, or spouse may sign the complaint-affidavit; otherwise defective. |
| Prescriptive period | 1 year from discovery for libel and oral defamation (Art 90 & 360). Exception: Cyber-libel – DOJ applies 15-year rule under RA 3326, but SC review is pending; CA in Ressa v. People, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09567 ( 7 Jul 2022) accepted 12 years (degree-higher penalty). |
| Arrest without warrant | Not allowed; slander is not continuous nor among the exceptions in Rule 113 §5. |
| Probation | Available if prison term ≤ 6 years 1 day; courts routinely grant. |
9 | Cyber-dimension
The same spoken insult streamed live (e.g., Facebook Live rant) can generate:
- Oral defamation (Art 358) and/or
- Cyber-libel (RA 10175) if a written caption accompanies the video or it is replayed on demand.
Penalty is one degree higher; maximum prisión correccional max. (4 y 2 m - 6 y) plus fine up to ₱1.2 million. The controversial “12-year” prescription—derived from Disini (2014) and RA 3326—remains unsettled pending Supreme Court clarification.
10 | Overlap with Related Offences
- Unjust vexation (Art 287) – mere annoyance without reputational element.
- Threats (Art 282-284) – “Sasaksakin kita!” uttered angrily = threats, not slander.
- Violence Against Women & their Children (VAWC) – repeated verbal abuse toward spouse/partner is psychological violence (RA 9262) besides oral defamation.
- Disrespect toward persons in authority – can be an aggravating circumstance or Direct Assault (Art 148).
11 | Current Policy Debates (2023-2025)
- Bills to decriminalize libel/slander (e.g., Senate Bills 1593 & 2520) remain pending; media & UN bodies urge repeal.
- SC draft rule on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) aims to dismiss harassing defamation suits early.
- Digital safety initiatives seek clearer separation between cyber-libel and legitimate online dissent.
12 | Practical Litigation Tips
- Act fast: file within 1 year (or earlier under current cyber-libel practice).
- Gather evidence: screenshots, audio recordings, witnesses. Authenticate per Rules on Electronic Evidence.
- Weigh mediation: prosecutors routinely endorse compromise for slight oral defamation (§1, Rule 110).
- Mind public status: Officials and influencers must anticipate actual-malice hurdle.
- Opt for civil suit under Art 33 if you want damages without risking jail for the defendant.
13 | Conclusion
Criminal liability for verbal abuse and insults in the Philippines sits at the intersection of reputation, speech, and digital technology. While the RPC still criminalizes slander and slander-by-deed, courts and Congress are steadily steering toward monetary fines, greater speech protection, and possible decriminalization. Until legislative reform arrives, however, uttered insults can—and regularly do—lead to arrest, trial, and conviction. Citizens, journalists, and netizens should therefore temper heated words with the knowledge that speech remains free—but never consequence-free—under present Philippine law.