Defamation is the act of harming a person’s reputation by making a false (or reputation-damaging) statement or imputation and communicating it to others. In Philippine law, defamation is primarily treated as a crime under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and may also give rise to civil liability for damages.

Philippine defamation generally comes in three forms:

Libel (written/printed or similar forms, including online posts)
Slander / Oral Defamation (spoken words)
Slander by Deed (defamatory acts rather than words)

1) The Legal Framework

A. Criminal defamation under the Revised Penal Code

Key RPC provisions:

Article 353 – Definition of libel (and general concept of defamation)
Article 355 – Libel by writings or similar means
Article 356 – Threatening to publish; offering reward for publication
Article 357 – Prohibited publication of acts referred to in official proceedings
Article 358 – Slander (oral defamation)
Article 359 – Slander by deed
Article 360 – Persons responsible; venue and filing rules
Article 361 – Proof of truth (as a defense, with conditions)
Article 362 – Libelous remarks

B. Cyber libel

Online defamation may be prosecuted as cyber libel under RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which generally imposes a higher penalty than ordinary RPC libel and affects court jurisdiction and procedure.

C. Civil liability and damages

Even without (or alongside) a criminal case, a defamed person may sue for damages under the Civil Code. Philippine practice allows civil actions arising from crimes and also recognizes that an action for damages may proceed independently in certain cases (including defamation), depending on the cause of action pleaded and procedural posture.

2) Defamation Concepts That Matter in Practice

A. Imputation

Defamation usually involves an imputation—a statement that attributes to a person a condition, act, crime, vice, defect, or circumstance that tends to cause:

dishonor,
discredit, or
contempt.

It’s not limited to accusing someone of a crime. Accusations like “she’s a prostitute,” “he’s a scammer,” “he has a contagious disease,” “she’s mentally unstable,” “he’s a cheater,” “they’re corrupt,” can be defamatory depending on context.

B. Publication

“Publication” means the defamatory imputation was communicated to at least one third person (someone other than the person defamed).

A private message to the target only: usually not published (no third party).
Group chats, forwarded messages, shared posts, reposts, comments, live streams: often are publication.

C. Identification

The offended party must be identifiable, directly or indirectly. Identification can be shown even if no name is used, as long as people reasonably understand who is being referred to (e.g., “the treasurer of X barangay,” “the only dentist in our town,” with contextual clues).

D. Malice (the pivotal issue)

Philippine criminal defamation generally revolves around malice.

Malice in law is often presumed once the defamatory statement is shown to be published and identifies the offended party.
That presumption can be overcome by showing the communication is privileged or otherwise justified (e.g., fair comment, performance of duty), or by showing lack of malice in fact.

For public officials/public figures and matters of public interest, Philippine jurisprudence has developed standards that may require showing actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) in specific contexts, especially for commentary on public issues—this is where many cases are won or lost.

3) Libel (Written Defamation)

A. What counts as “written” or “similar means”

Libel traditionally covers writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio/phonograph, paintings, theatrical exhibitions, cinematographic exhibitions, and “similar means.”

In modern practice, “similar means” includes online posts, blogs, and other digital publications; and cyber libel may apply when the act is done through a computer system.

B. Elements of libel (core checklist)

To establish libel, the prosecution typically proves:

Defamatory imputation
Publication (to a third person)
Identification of the offended party
Malice (presumed unless privileged; or must be proven depending on context)

C. Criminal penalties (general)

Ordinary RPC libel carries imprisonment and/or fine (the exact range depends on the statute and how the court applies it). Cyber libel generally carries a higher penalty than ordinary libel.

4) Slander / Oral Defamation (Spoken Defamation)

A. What it is

Slander is defamation committed by spoken words, typically face-to-face, by phone, or through verbal statements broadcast live (depending on circumstances).

B. Elements (similar to libel)

Defamatory utterance
Publication (heard by a third person)
Identification
Malice (presumed or proven depending on privilege/context)

C. Grave vs. slight oral defamation

Oral defamation is commonly categorized as:

Grave (serious) oral defamation – more insulting, damaging, or delivered in circumstances showing clear intent to dishonor; often involves accusations of serious wrongdoing or extreme insult.
Slight oral defamation – less severe insults, often arising from heated exchanges, trivial contexts, or less damaging imputations.

Courts look at:

the exact words used (including local language nuances),
the setting (public vs private),
the relationship of the parties,
provocation,
tone and manner, and
social standing/context.

5) Slander by Deed

A. What it is

This is defamation committed by acts rather than words—conduct that casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt on a person.

Examples (context-dependent):

performing a humiliating gesture directed at a person in public,
acts meant to publicly shame a person, especially if recorded/disseminated,
other conduct that clearly intends reputational harm.

B. Grave vs. slight slander by deed

As with oral defamation, severity is judged by:

nature of the act,
publicity,
intent, and
circumstances.

6) Defenses and Privileges (How Defamation Cases Get Dismissed)

Defamation is not automatic just because a statement is harsh. Key defenses include:

A. Truth (with conditions)

“Truth” can be a defense, but in Philippine criminal libel it has conditions. Proof of truth is traditionally more readily allowed when:

the imputation involves a public officer and relates to official duties; or
the matter is of public interest and made with good motives and justifiable ends (as evaluated by the court).

Even a true statement can still create liability if the manner, motive, or lack of justification brings it outside protected speech, depending on the circumstances.

B. Privileged communications

Privileged statements may defeat the presumption of malice.

Absolutely privileged (generally immune)

Statements made by legislators in legislative proceedings
Statements in judicial proceedings, pleadings, or testimonies relevant to the case (These are commonly protected to allow free participation in public functions of government.)

Qualifiedly privileged (protected unless actual malice is shown) Common categories include:

Fair and true report of official proceedings (with conditions)
Communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty
Fair commentaries on matters of public interest (where courts examine whether it is opinion, based on facts, and not motivated by spite)

With qualified privilege, the complainant often needs to show malice in fact (actual ill will or reckless disregard for truth).

C. Fair comment / opinion vs. assertion of fact

A practical dividing line:

Opinion/commentary on a matter of public interest, based on disclosed facts, is more defensible.
Assertions of fact (“X stole money,” “Y committed adultery,” “Z is HIV-positive”) need proof and are more likely actionable if false/unjustified.

D. Lack of identification

If the statement doesn’t reasonably point to the complainant, the case may fail.

E. No publication

If no third person received it, criminal defamation generally collapses.

F. Good faith / absence of malice

Especially relevant in:

complaints to authorities (when done properly),
workplace reports made through proper channels,
consumer reviews grounded on truthful experience (still risky if they become accusations of crime without basis).

7) Cyber Libel (Online Defamation) — Practical Notes

A. What triggers cyber libel

Cyber libel is typically alleged when a defamatory imputation is made through a computer system (social media posts, blogs, forums, etc.).

B. Who can be liable online

Possible liable actors depend on the facts and evolving jurisprudence, but commonly alleged respondents include:

the original author/poster,
people who republish or share with additional defamatory context,
admins/moderators in limited contexts (fact-specific; not automatic).

A major practical point: liability often focuses on the original author and on republication, not mere passive platform presence.

C. Evidence is everything in cyber cases

Because posts can be deleted, edited, made private, or “disappear,” your case usually rises or falls on how well you preserve proof (see the evidence section below).

D. Prescription (time limits)

Defamation offenses have short filing windows in many situations. Cyber libel prescription has been a contested area in practice because it is prosecuted under a special law framework with different penalty levels; timelines may be treated differently than ordinary libel depending on how courts apply the rules. Treat timing as urgent.

8) Evidence You Should Preserve (Before Filing)

A. For ordinary libel (print/written)

Original article/publication (newspaper issue, magazine, printed material)
Proof of where and when it was circulated
Witness affidavits (people who read it and understood it referred to you)
Context proving identification (if unnamed)

B. For oral defamation

Names and affidavits of witnesses who heard the statement
Audio recordings (if lawfully obtained—be cautious: recording private communications can raise separate legal issues)
Circumstantial proof (where, when, who was present)

C. For cyber libel

Screenshots (include the entire screen showing name/handle, date/time, URL if visible)
URL links and account identifiers
Screen recording showing navigation to the post
Archived copies (printing to PDF with metadata where possible)
Witness affidavits (people who saw the post online)
If available, platform verification details, message headers, or authenticated captures

Authentication tip (practical): Courts often look for reliability in how evidence was captured and preserved. The more complete the capture (URL, timestamps, device info, sequence of access), the better.

9) How to File a Defamation Case in the Philippines (Step-by-Step)

Defamation can be pursued criminally, civilly, or both (subject to procedural choices). Most complainants start with a criminal complaint.

Step 1: Identify the correct offense

Libel (written/printed)
Slander / Oral defamation (spoken)
Slander by deed (act)
Cyber libel (online via computer system)

Correct classification affects:

penalty,
jurisdiction (which court),
prosecutor handling,
evidence requirements,
filing timelines.

Step 2: Determine jurisdiction and venue (where to file)

Defamation has specialized venue rules in practice (particularly for libel), commonly tied to:

where the material was printed and first published, and/or
where the offended party resided at the time, and/or
where the offended party held office (for public officers)

Cyber libel venue issues can be more complex due to online publication and access, and often turn on where the complainant or accused is located, where access occurred, or where harm is felt, depending on how the case is framed and current practice.

Step 3: Prepare an Affidavit-Complaint and supporting affidavits

A typical criminal complaint packet includes:

Affidavit-Complaint stating:

your personal circumstances,
identity of respondent (name/handle/address if known),
the exact defamatory statement/act (quote verbatim),
when, where, and how it was published/uttered,
how you were identified,
why it is false/defamatory,
circumstances showing malice,
the harm caused.

Annexes / Evidence

screenshots/printouts/copies,
links,
recordings (if lawful),
certified copies where applicable.

Witness affidavits

third persons who read/heard the statement and can testify to publication and identification.

Step 4: File with the proper prosecutor’s office

Typically, you file a complaint at the:

Office of the City Prosecutor or Provincial Prosecutor with jurisdiction over the offense/venue.

For cyber-related complaints, complainants often coordinate with cybercrime units or law enforcement for evidence preservation and investigation support, but the filing is still generally anchored on prosecutorial evaluation.

Step 5: Preliminary investigation (or appropriate evaluation) and counter-affidavits

Depending on the offense and penalty level:

The prosecutor will require the respondent to submit a counter-affidavit.
The parties may submit reply and rejoinder affidavits.
The prosecutor resolves whether there is probable cause to file an Information in court.

Step 6: Filing in court and trial process

If probable cause is found:

The prosecutor files the Information in the proper court.
The case proceeds through arraignment, pre-trial, and trial.

Jurisdiction note (practical): Whether the case is filed in a first-level court or the RTC can depend on the penalty level and how the law is applied (notably for cyber libel due to its higher penalty). Venue/jurisdiction in libel is a technical area—mistakes here can cause dismissal.

Step 7: Civil damages (joined or separate)

You may:

claim civil damages in the criminal case, or
file a separate civil action in certain circumstances (subject to procedural rules and what you elect to reserve).

10) Remedies and Outcomes

A. Criminal outcomes

Acquittal or conviction
Penalties can include imprisonment and/or fine depending on the offense and court findings
Payment of damages may be awarded if civil liability is adjudged

B. Civil outcomes

Moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages (if proven), attorney’s fees (if allowed), etc.

C. Non-litigation options (often used in parallel)

Demand letter / request for retraction
Platform reporting/takedown (non-judicial)
Mediation/settlement (case-by-case; not all defamation disputes are best handled by trial)

11) Common Pitfalls That Get Cases Dismissed

No proof of publication (no credible third-party proof)
Weak identification (cannot show it clearly referred to you)
Treating opinion as fact (fair comment defenses apply)
Missing the filing deadline (prescription issues)
Filing in the wrong venue/jurisdiction (libel is technical)
Poor evidence capture for online posts (unauthenticated screenshots, no URLs/context)
Privileged context ignored (e.g., statements in pleadings/official proceedings)

12) Quick Reference: Elements by Type

Libel (written/printed/online equivalent)

Defamatory imputation
Publication
Identification
Malice (presumed unless privileged; may require actual malice in certain public-interest contexts)

Slander (oral)

Defamatory utterance
Heard by a third person
Identification
Malice

Slander by deed

Defamatory act
Publicity/communication to others
Identification
Malice (context-dependent)

Cyber libel

Elements of libel
Done through a computer system
Typically higher penalty; evidence/authentication and venue become central issues

13) Practical Affidavit-Complaint Structure (Template Outline)

Caption (Prosecutor’s Office, parties, complaint)
Personal circumstances of complainant
Respondent identity (name/alias/handle; address if known)
Narration of facts (chronological)
Verbatim defamatory statements (quote exactly; attach annexes)
Publication (who saw/heard; attach witness affidavits)
Identification (why it clearly refers to you)
Malice (why it was done; bad faith indicators; lack of basis)
Damages/harm (reputation, job, business, emotional distress; attach proof if any)
Prayer (finding of probable cause; filing of Information; damages as applicable)
Verification and certification (as required)
Attachments (marked Annex “A,” “B,” etc.)

14) Final Cautions (Philippine Reality Check)

Defamation law in the Philippines is highly fact-sensitive. Small differences—whether a statement is framed as opinion vs. fact, whether the setting is privileged, whether the complainant is a public figure, whether the evidence is properly authenticated, whether venue is correct—can completely change the result. Timing is also critical because defamation complaints can be barred by prescription if not filed promptly.