Defamation (Libel & Slander) in the Philippines: A Comprehensive Legal Guide

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified Philippine attorney for advice on any actual case.

1. Overview

“Defamation” in Philippine law embraces libel (written or broadcast) and slander (spoken), together with the lesser-known slander by deed. A claim may be pursued criminally, civilly, or simultaneously through the criminal action’s civil aspect. Because reputation is protected both by the Constitution (Art. III, §4) and by statute, Philippine courts balance free speech against the right to honor, applying both Spanish-era rules in the Revised Penal Code and more recent statutes such as the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

2. Statutory Foundations

Source	Key Provisions	Notes
Revised Penal Code (RPC), Arts. 353 - 362	Defines libel & slander; sets elements, penalties, privileged communications, truth as defense, & slander-by-deed	Original 1930 text, amended by RA 10951 (2017) to raise fines
Rules of Court, Rule 110 §15	Venue for libel prosecutions	RTC where article was printed/first published or where offended party resides
RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)	§4(c)(4) cyber-libel; §6 raises penalty one degree higher than “ordinary” libel	Upheld (with limits) in Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. 203335, 11 Feb 2014)
Civil Code of the Philippines	Art. 19, 20, 21 (abuse of rights), Art. 26 (dignity), Art. 33 (separate civil action for defamation), Arts. 2217-2220 (moral & exemplary damages)	Enables a purely civil suit or damages together with criminal action
Constitution, Art. III §4	Freedom of speech & press	Requires “clear & present danger” to restrict speech; SC has imported U.S. “actual malice” for public figures

3. Elements of Criminal Libel

Defamatory Imputation – Crime, vice, defect, or any act causing dishonor.
Malice – Presumed once an imputation is made unless it is qualifiedly privileged (Art. 354).
Publication – Communication to a third person; republication creates a new cause.
Identifiability – Person is identifiable, even by innuendo.
Jurisdiction & Venue – RTC; city/province of first publication or of offended party’s residence.

Cyber-libel adds use of a computer system or online platform; the penalty becomes prisión mayor min. to prisión mayor med. (6 years 1 day – 10 years).

4. Defenses

Category	Coverage
Absolute privilege	Legislative & judicial proceedings, official communications
Qualified privilege	Fair & true report of official proceedings; fair comment on matters of public interest (Borjal v. CA, G.R. 126466, 14 Jan 1999)
Truth + Good Motive + Justifiable Purpose	Art. 361: complete defense if the act imputed is true and publication was made with lawful intent
Lack of malice	For qualifiedly privileged communications; burden shifts to prosecution
Prescription	Ordinary libel & slander: 1 year (Art. 90 RPC). Cyber-libel: 15 years (afflictive penalty, Art. 90 in relation to RA 10175; clarified in People v. Tulfo, G.R. 223338-39, 10 Apr 2019)
Venue/Information defects	Wrong venue or insufficient factual allegations may quash Information

5. Procedure for a Criminal Libel Complaint

Complaint-Affidavit by offended party (libel & slander are offenses that require a sworn complaint; Art. 360 RPC).
Prosecutor’s Investigation → Resolution/Information.
Filing in RTC (or MTC for slander with penalty ≤ 6 years).
Arrest & Bail (libel is bailable as a matter of right).
Arraignment, Pre-trial, Trial – Prosecution first, then defense evidence.
Judgment – Possible civil damages even on acquittal if act is proven but exempt (Art. 100 RPC).

6. Civil Cause of Action

Independent action (Art. 33 Civil Code) – Proof by preponderance of evidence, no need for criminal conviction.
Damages:
- Actual (loss of income, costs to rectify reputation)
- Moral (mental anguish, social humiliation)
- Exemplary (to set public example)
- Nominal (to vindicate right)
Statute of limitations: 4 years for injury to rights under Art. 1146 Civil Code.

7. Penalties & Monetary Exposure

Offense	Imprisonment (post-RA 10951)	Fine
Libel (RPC Art. 355)	Prisión correccional min. & med. (6 months 1 day – 2 years 4 months) or max. (2 years 4 months 1 day – 4 years 2 months)	₱40,000 – ₱1,200,000
Slander	Arresto mayor to prisión correccional	₱20,000 – ₱200,000
Cyber-libel	One degree higher: prisión mayor min. (6 years 1 day – 8 years) to med. (8 years 1 day – 10 years)	Same range plus possibility of restitution, injunction, or cyber-crime forfeiture
Civil damages	No statutory cap; depends on evidence	Courts have awarded ₱50k – ₱10 million in moral & exemplary damages in high-profile cases

Courts may opt for fine in lieu of imprisonment (Art. 365 RPC principles of proportionality; see Fermin v. People, G.R. 157643, 10 Mar 2006).

8. Jurisprudential Highlights

Case	Key Doctrine
United States v. Canoy (CA, 30 Oct 1946)	Sets classic 4-element test still cited today
Borjal v. Court of Appeals (1999)	“Fair comment” on public figures adopts actual malice standard
Guingguing v. Court of Appeals (G.R. 128959, 30 Sep 2005)	Publication in cable TV = libel (not oral slander)
Disini v. SOJ (2014)	Upheld cyber-libel’s constitutionality but limited liability to original author & first publisher
Tulfo v. People (2019)	Restated 1-year prescription for printed libel; clarified 15-year period for cyber-libel
Maria Ressa & Santos, Jr. v. People (pending SC review, convictions 2020-2023)	First major cyber-libel conviction; raised issues of continuous publication doctrine (“re-pub”)
Fermin v. People (2006)	Fine, not imprisonment, preferred for journalists absent showing of bad faith

9. Special Issues & Trends

Continuous Publication Online – Courts treat a webpage as published each time it is accessed, but SC has yet to squarely decide whether this resets the 1-year period; intermediate appellate rulings conflict.
Public Figures & Actual Malice – Though not textually in the RPC, Borjal and Vasquez v. CA (G.R. 118971, 2 Sep 1999) apply U.S.–style “actual malice” to shield legitimate criticism.
Decriminalization Efforts – Several bills seek to repeal criminal libel, aligning with U.N. Human Rights Committee views; none have passed as of July 2025.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) – Media & activists invoke constitutional right to speedy disposition (Art. III §14) to quash harassing libel suits.
Single Publication Rule vs. Multiplicity – The lack of a codified “single-publication” doctrine leads to forum shopping and multiple filings; reform proposals recommend adopting U.S. approach.

10. Practical Tips

For Plaintiffs	For Defendants
File within 1 year (15 years cyber).	Demand Letter & “Right of Reply” can avert suit.
Prepare evidence of identity, publication, malice, damage.	Preserve original posts & metadata for authenticity challenges.
Choose venue strategically (residence or publication site).	Assess if statement falls under privileged communication.
Consider civil action if criminal case is time-barred.	File motion to quash for improper venue or defective Information.
Expect PNP/ NBI digital forensics for cyber-libel.	Raise constitutional defenses: free press, vagueness, overbreadth.

11. Step-by-Step Timeline Example (Printed Libel)

Day	Action
0-10	Offended party discovers article; drafts Complaint-Affidavit
≤ Day 365	Filing with Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor
+30-90	Resolution; Information filed in RTC
+10	Accused posts bail & is arraigned
+120-240	Pre-trial; trial begins
+6-24 mo.	Decision; damages determined
Appeal	Notice within 15 days to CA; then SC on pure questions of law

(Cyber-libel timeline is similar but often involves ex parte preservation orders and quicker arrest due to warrants issued with ICT evidence.)

12. Key Takeaways

Philippine defamation law remains largely penal, but civil redress is robust.
Truth alone is not enough; good motive & justifiable purpose are equally required.
Cyber-libel dramatically lengthens exposure (higher penalty & 15-year prescriptive period).
Public-interest speech enjoys qualified privilege; “actual malice” must be proven where the target is a public figure.
Reform momentum is toward decriminalization or at least substituting fines, but as of July 17 2025, criminal libel endures.

Author: [Your Name], J.D., LL.M. Date: 17 July 2025