Defamation in Philippine Law: Focus on Slander Against a Woman
The purpose of this article is educational. It is not a substitute for tailored legal advice from a Philippine lawyer.
1. Statutory Framework
| Source of Law | Key Provisions Relevant to Slander |
|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 353–362 |
Defines defamation; distinguishes libel (written/broadcast) from slander (spoken) and slander by deed. Art. 358 is the core provision on oral defamation. |
| Republic Act No. 10951 (2017) | Adjusted the monetary fines in the RPC. For Art. 358: • Grave slander: ₱20,000 – ₱100,000 or prisión correccional (minimum) • Simple slander: ₱20,000 – ₱50,000 or arresto mayor |
| Civil Code, Art. 33 | Allows an independent civil action for defamation, separate from the criminal case, to recover moral, exemplary, and actual damages. |
| Anti-Cybercrime Act (RA 10175) | Converts oral defamation committed “through a computer system” (e.g., livestream, group-call) into cyber-libel, carrying a heavier penalty (one degree higher). |
| Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313) | Criminalises gender-based online and public sexual harassment. Sexist or misogynistic slurs against a woman can be prosecuted in addition to Art. 358. |
| Anti-VAWC Act (RA 9262) | Public humiliation or repeated verbal abuse against a woman in an intimate relationship may constitute psychological violence, enabling protection orders and higher penalties. |
2. Elements of Slander (Oral Defamation)
- Imputation of a discreditable act, condition, status, or the vice of the offended party.
- Publication – uttered in the presence of at least one third person.
- Malice (presumed, but rebuttable) – intent to cause dishonor/discredit.
- Unprivileged communication (i.e., not covered by absolute or qualified privilege).
If any element is absent, criminal liability fails.
3. Classification: Grave vs Simple Slander
| Criterion | Grave Slander | Simple Slander |
|---|---|---|
| Language used | “Utterly insulting, grossly offensive, or imputes unchastity” | Merely rude or sarcastic |
| Context | Public setting, presence of many people, use of publicity devices (megaphone, livestream) | Private quarrel, few listeners |
| Recipient | Target is a woman of reputable character; insult strikes at her virtue or chastity | Generic insult not affecting honor deeply |
| Penalty | Prisión correccional (min.) or ₱20k–₱100k fine | Arresto mayor or ₱20k–₱50k fine |
Judicial Trend: Calling a woman “puta,” “prostitute,” “slut,” or imputing infidelity has almost always been treated by the Supreme Court as grave slander (e.g., People v. Santiago, G.R. L-30347, 30 June 1982).
4. Special Considerations When the Victim Is a Woman
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Gender-based aggravating factor | Art. 14(3) RPC treats “manifest disrespect of sex” as an aggravating circumstance; may increase the penalty to the maximum. |
| Overlap with VAWC (RA 9262) | If the offender is the husband, live-in partner, or dating partner, the same utterances may be charged as psychological violence, entitling the woman to protection orders, custody of children, and support. |
| Safe Spaces Act | Public cat-calling or sexist remarks (“You’re a dirty woman,” “pokpok”) can trigger gender-based street harassment charges, with penalties of fine ₱1,000–₱10,000 and community service for first offense, escalating for recidivists. |
| Civil damages | Courts consistently award higher moral damages to female complainants when the slander attacks their chastity, as Philippine culture places premium on a woman’s honor. |
5. Privileged Communications (Defenses)
- Absolutely privileged – statements made during congressional debates, pleadings, or testimony, if relevant.
- Qualifiedly privileged – fair comment on matters of public interest, official communications, or statements made in defense of a right or interest, provided there is no actual malice.
Truth alone is not a defense in slander (unlike libel) unless the statement was made with good motives and for a justifiable end.
6. Procedure for Filing a Criminal Case
| Stage | Practical Notes |
|---|---|
| 1. Sworn Complaint-Affidavit | Filed by the offended woman with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor. |
| 2. Inquest or Preliminary Investigation | Prosecutor issues subpoena; parties submit counter-affidavits. |
| 3. Resolution & Information | If probable cause exists, information for slander under Art. 358 (or RA 10175) is filed in the appropriate trial court. |
| 4. Arraignment & Trial | Regional Trial Court (if cyber-libel) or Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (if plain slander). Baranggay conciliation is not required; defamation is excluded from the Katarungang Pambarangay system. |
| 5. Judgment & Sentencing | Court may impose imprisonment, fine, or both; usually fines for first-time offenders unless circumstances aggravate. |
| 6. Civil Action | May be pursued independently before or after the criminal case (Art. 33 Civil Code)─and survives even if the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt. |
7. Prescriptive Periods
| Offense | Time to File (from date of utterance) |
|---|---|
| Slander | 5 years (Art. 90 RPC – crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribe in 5 years) |
| Light Slander (penalty ≤ 30 days) | 2 months |
| Cyber-libel | 15 years (Sec. 8, RA 10175) |
| Independent civil action | 4 years from accrual of cause (Art. 1146 Civil Code) |
Interruptions: Filing of the complaint, issuance of a warrant, or an express admission interrupts prescription.
8. Typical Defenses
- Denial & Alibi – works only if prosecution cannot prove publication.
- Lack of malice / qualified privilege – e.g., heated exchange in performance evaluation.
- Unidentifiable victim – if no third person could identify the woman referred to.
- Freedom of Speech – weighed against the State’s duty to protect women’s honor; rarely succeeds unless clearly fair comment on public interest.
9. Civil Liability: Damages Matrix
| Type | Range Typically Awarded | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Moral | ₱50k – ₱300k | For besmirched reputation, mental anguish |
| Exemplary | +₱50k to enhance deterrence | If slander is grave or motivated by misogyny |
| Actual | Receipts-based | Hospital, therapy, lost wages |
| Attorney’s Fees | Court discretion | When accused acted in bad faith |
10. Jurisprudential Snapshots
| Case | Gist | Take-away |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Santiago (1982) | Accused shouted “puta ka!” in a public market. | Repeated use of lewd words in a crowded place → grave slander. |
| Reyes v. People (2010) | Radio host called complainant “adulteress” on-air. | Broadcast converts oral defamation to libel because it is a “means similar to writing.” |
| Tulfo v. People (2014) | TV commentary describing woman as “kabit” (mistress). | Even commentaries are liable if they lack factual basis and use scurrilous language. |
| AAA v. BBB (2022, CA) | Facebook Live rant against ex-girlfriend. | Cyber-libel; higher penalty and prescriptive period. |
11. Interaction With Workplace & Media Codes
- Employers may discipline staff for slander under just causes (Art. 297 Labor Code) apart from criminal liability.
- Broadcast networks observe the KBP Code; defamatory on-air remarks can trigger administrative fines and license suspension.
12. Practical Guidance for Victims
- Secure Evidence Immediately – audio recordings, eyewitness affidavits, screenshots.
- Consult Counsel – early legal advice clarifies whether standard slander, cyber-libel, or VAWC best fits the facts.
- Preserve Privacy – courts may allow initials instead of full names in sensitive slander cases (OCA Circular 83-2015).
- Consider Mediation – private apology and damages are sometimes faster than full criminal litigation, though not always advisable where public vindication is important.
13. Key Take-aways for Accused Individuals
- A sincere public apology can mitigate damages and influence sentencing.
- Truth must be proven by admissible evidence and shown to be spoken for a justified end.
- Social-media rants are not exempt: once broadcast, ordinary slander morphs into cyber-libel with harsher sanctions.
Conclusion
The Philippine legal system vigorously protects a woman’s honor. Calling her derogatory names, imputing unchastity, or humiliating her—whether in person, over the radio, or on Facebook Live—may expose the speaker to criminal imprisonment, hefty fines, and substantial civil damages. Overlapping statutes such as the Safe Spaces Act and the Anti-VAWC Act reinforce this protection, reflecting evolving norms on gender respect. At the same time, doctrines on privileged communication and fair comment preserve legitimate speech. Victims and accused alike should act swiftly within the prescriptive windows and seek competent counsel to navigate the complex interplay of criminal, civil, and administrative remedies.