I. Introduction

In the Philippines, attacking a person’s reputation can be more than just rude or unethical—it can be a crime.

Under Philippine law, defamation may give rise to:

Criminal liability – mainly under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and
Civil liability – under the Civil Code for damages.

Three concepts are key:

Defamation – the broader idea of attacking a person’s reputation.
Libel – defamation in writing or similarly permanent form.
Slander – defamation spoken or in a transient form (including “slander by deed”).

Understanding when hurtful words cross the line into a criminal offense is crucial, especially in the age of social media where posts can spread fast and far.

II. Main Legal Sources

1. Revised Penal Code (RPC)

Key provisions:

Article 353 – defines libel.
Articles 354–362 – deal with presumption of malice, privileged communications, defenses, penalties, venue, and proof of truth.
Articles 358–359 – cover slander and slander by deed.

2. Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175)

Makes libel committed through a computer system (e.g., Facebook, X/Twitter, blogs, online news sites) a specific offense often referred to as cyberlibel.
Provides higher penalties than ordinary libel because of the potentially wider reach and permanence of online content.

3. Civil Code of the Philippines

Articles 19–21 – “Abuse of rights” and “acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy” can ground a civil action for damages.
Article 26 – protection of dignity, privacy, and peace of mind.
Article 33 – allows an independent civil action for damages in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, regardless of the outcome of a criminal case.

III. What Is Defamation?

Defamation is any act or statement that tends to dishonor, discredit, or put a person in contempt or ridicule in the eyes of others.

A. Libel (Written Defamation)

Under Article 353 of the RPC, libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to:

Cause dishonor,
Discredit, or
Contempt of a natural or juridical person, or of the memory of one who is dead, and committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.

In modern practice, this extends by analogy to:

Newspaper articles
Magazines
Flyers, posters, tarpaulins
Broadcast media (radio/TV scripts, prepared statements)
Social media posts, blogs, vlogs (for online, RA 10175 explicitly applies)

B. Slander (Oral Defamation)

Slander (oral defamation) is essentially the same type of defamatory imputation, but expressed by word of mouth or other transient means (e.g., public shouting, live speeches) and not covered by the forms listed in Article 353 for libel.

There are generally two kinds recognized in jurisprudence:

Simple slander – relatively less serious insults.
Grave slander – extremely serious insults, often involving accusations of serious crimes, immoral conduct, or statements that deeply affect honor and reputation.

C. Slander by Deed

Slander by deed is defamation through actions rather than words alone, such as:

Publicly slapping someone in a way meant to humiliate them;
Spitting on a person in front of others;
Gestures or acts that are clearly meant to shame and dishonor.

IV. Elements of Criminal Libel

To convict a person of libel, prosecutors generally must prove:

Imputation of a discreditable act or condition
- A statement that imputes a crime, vice, defect, or anything that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
- Examples: accusing someone of theft, adultery, corruption, cheating in exams, being incompetent or dishonest in their profession.
Publication
- The statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the offended party.
- Publication can be:
  - Printing in a newspaper or online article;
  - Posting on social media where others can see;
  - Sending a defamatory email to third persons (not just the subject).
Identifiability (refer to an identifiable person)
- The offended party must be identifiable, even if not named explicitly.
- It is enough that those who know the person can reasonably tell who is being referred to.
- Group defamation is tricky: if the group is small or specific enough (e.g., “the only accountant of X company”), the individual may still be identified.
Malice
- As a rule, malice is presumed by law once defamatory content and publication are proven (Article 354), except in some cases of privileged communication.
- Malice means the statement was made with ill will, spite, or reckless disregard of whether it is true or false.
Defamatory character
- The statement must actually tend to damage the person’s honor or reputation in the eyes of a reasonable member of society.

If any one of these key elements is missing, criminal libel may not be established (although civil liability might still exist in some situations).

V. Cyberlibel and Online Speech

1. What is Cyberlibel?

Under RA 10175, libel committed through a computer system (e.g., social media, websites, email, online publications) is penalized. It is essentially libel + use of computer/Internet, with a higher penalty.

The same elements of libel apply, but the mode of publication is digital.

Examples that may amount to cyberlibel:

A Facebook post falsely accusing a person of stealing company funds.
A blog post alleging that a teacher is a child abuser without factual basis.
A viral tweet thread labelling someone a scammer based on rumors, with no effort to verify.

2. Likes, Shares, Comments

Philippine jurisprudence has distinguished between:

The original author/uploader of defamatory content, and
Persons who merely “like,” “react,” or “share”.

The Supreme Court has previously struck down overly broad provisions on “aiding or abetting” online libel that would make mere liking/sharing automatically criminal, but persons who add their own defamatory caption, commentary, or rephrasing can themselves become authors of new defamatory statements.

3. Jurisdiction and Venue Issues

With online posts:

The complainant often argues that publication happens wherever the content is accessed,
In practice, complaints are commonly filed where the offended party resides or where the server or device used to post is located, depending on specific statutory rules and jurisprudence.

Venue is a technical but important issue, and misfiling (wrong venue) can be a ground for dismissal.

VI. Who May Be Held Liable?

1. For Traditional Libel (Print, Broadcast)

The RPC may hold the following liable:

Author – the writer or originator of the libelous content.
Editor or business manager – of the publication in which it appears, in some cases.
Publisher – the entity that prints or circulates the libelous material.

2. For Online Libel

Possible liable persons include:

The original poster/uploader of the defamatory statement.
Those who re-post with their own defamatory additions (e.g., quote-tweet with new accusations).
In some circumstances, site administrators or editors who knowingly publish defamatory submissions or articles.

Hosting platforms or ISPs are generally treated differently from content authors, but this area continues to evolve.

3. Corporate and Organizational Liability

Officers, directors, or employees who cause or allow defamatory publications in the name of a company or organization may face liability.
The company itself may incur civil liability (damages) alongside or independently of the criminal case against individuals.

VII. Malice and Privileged Communications

1. Presumption of Malice (Article 354)

As a rule:

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive is shown.

This means that once a defamatory statement and its publication are proven, malice is presumed and the burden shifts to the accused to show good intention and justifiable motive—unless the case falls under privileged communications.

2. Exceptions: Privileged Communications

Article 354 recognizes two kinds of privileged communications:

a. Absolutely Privileged

These are generally not actionable, even if malicious, such as:

Statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their official functions (subject to constitutional rules).
Statements made in official proceedings (e.g., in court, Congress) within their proper scope.

b. Qualifiedly Privileged

These are protected provided there is no actual malice in fact:

Private communications
- A “private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty”
- Example: a parent writing to a school principal to report alleged bullying, made in good faith and limited to the relevant persons.
Fair and true report, made in good faith, of official proceedings or of facts related to official acts performed by public officers.
- For instance, accurate reporting of court proceedings, legislative hearings, or official press conferences.

Important: Qualified privilege removes the presumption of malice, but the offended party may still prove actual malice (malice in fact) to establish liability.

3. Public Officials and Public Figures

The Supreme Court has recognized that:

Public officials and public figures must tolerate wider latitude of criticism, especially regarding their official conduct.
Comment or criticism on their official acts may be considered qualifiedly privileged.

However:

This does not give the public a blanket license to fabricate facts or launch pure character assassination.
Even criticism of public figures can become criminal or civilly actionable if it is a knowingly false statement or made with reckless disregard for the truth.

VIII. Defenses and Mitigating Circumstances

1. Truth + Good Motives + Justifiable Ends (Article 361)

Truth alone is NOT automatically a complete defense in criminal libel.
The accused must show:
- That the imputation is true, and
- That it was made with good motives and for justifiable ends (e.g., exposing corruption, warning others of real danger).

For public officials, truth may carry greater weight when the imputation concerns their official conduct, but the context and good faith are always examined.

2. Privileged Communications

As discussed:

If the communication is qualifiedly privileged, the prosecution must prove actual malice (bad faith, ill will, knowledge of falsity, or reckless disregard).

3. Lack of Publication

If the statement was never communicated to a third person (e.g., a rude letter sent only to the person concerned), there is no libel, although other criminal or civil provisions may apply (e.g., threats, grave oral defamation if uttered publicly).

4. Lack of Identifiability

If no one can reasonably tell who is being referred to, then no identifiable offended party exists, and libel cannot prosper.

5. Opinion vs. Statement of Fact

Pure opinion (e.g., “I think she is a terrible singer”) is generally safer than false statements of fact (e.g., “She was expelled from school for cheating” when that never happened).
Courts look at the total context: tone, wording, setting, audience, and whether an average reader would treat the statement as a fact or opinion.

6. Apology, Retraction, Good Character

These do not erase criminal liability but can:

Serve as mitigating circumstances,
Affect the penalty or the amount of damages in civil actions.

IX. Penalties and Prescription

1. Penal Sanctions

Under the RPC and related amendments, libel and slander may carry:

Imprisonment,
Fines, or
A combination of both, depending on gravity (e.g., simple libel, grave slander, etc.).

Cyberlibel generally carries a higher penalty than traditional libel (the penalty is increased by one degree).

2. Prescription

Ordinary libel: The RPC traditionally provides a one-year prescriptive period from publication, within which the criminal action must be instituted.
Slander: generally shorter prescriptive periods (often six months) depending on the specific provision.
Cyberlibel: because of the higher penalty, some interpretations and jurisprudence treat it as subject to a longer prescriptive period than ordinary libel; this is a technical and evolving area, and precise computation often depends on the exact statutory classification and latest case law.

X. Civil Liability for Defamation

Even if:

No criminal case is filed, or
The accused is acquitted in the criminal case (e.g., for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt),

the offended party can still file a civil action for damages based on:

Article 33 of the Civil Code (independent civil action for defamation),
Articles 19–21 (abuse of right, acts contrary to law or morals),
Article 26 (privacy, dignity, and peace of mind).

Types of Damages

Moral damages – for mental anguish, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, humiliation.
Actual damages – for proven financial loss (e.g., lost contracts, clients, job opportunities).
Exemplary damages – to serve as an example or correction for the public good.
Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses – in proper cases.

The standard of proof in civil cases is preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

XI. How Defamation Cases Typically Proceed

Complaint
- The offended party files a complaint-affidavit with the prosecutor’s office (for criminal cases) or a civil complaint in court (for purely civil cases).
Preliminary Investigation (Criminal)
- The prosecutor examines whether there is probable cause to file an information in court.
Filing of Information and Arraignment
- If probable cause is found, the information is filed in the proper court; the accused is arraigned and enters a plea.
Trial
- Presentation of evidence by both sides:
  - Prosecution must prove the elements of libel/slander.
  - Defense may invoke defenses such as truth, privilege, lack of identifiability, or absence of publication/malice.
Judgment
- The court may acquit or convict, and may also rule on civil liability.
- In an independent civil action, the court focuses on damages and liability under the Civil Code.

XII. Practical Implications in Everyday Life

1. Social Media Use

Common risky behaviors:

Posting unverified accusations (“Scammer ’yan,” “Magnanakaw yan sa kumpanya”).
Publishing screenshots of private conversations with defamatory captions.
Starting or participating in “exposé” threads based purely on gossip.

Even if you believe something is true, reckless posting without verification, context, or good motive can be grounds for criminal and civil cases.

2. Workplace and School Situations

Sending defamatory emails to group mailing lists about a co-worker’s alleged misconduct can be libelous.
Announcements or speeches that falsely accuse a student or employee of cheating, theft, or serious misconduct can amount to slander or libel, depending on the form.

3. Reviews and Consumer Complaints

Honest, factual, and good-faith reviews (“The food was cold,” “Service was slow”) are generally safer.
Accusations of criminal acts (“This restaurant mixes expired food as a scam”) without basis, especially if widely shared online, can be defamatory.

4. Political and Public Commentary

Vigorous criticism of public officials’ actions and policies is more tolerated, but:
- Fabricating stories, spreading lies, or making accusations of crimes without evidence can still lead to liability.
- Responsible criticism rests on facts, fair comment, and good faith.

XIII. Key Takeaways

Defamation is any act that destroys a person’s reputation; libel is written or similarly permanent defamation, slander is oral, and slander by deed is defamation through acts.
To be criminally liable for libel, the law generally requires:
- A defamatory imputation,
- Publication,
- Identifiability of the offended party, and
- Malice (presumed by law unless privileged).
Cyberlibel applies when defamatory content is published via computer systems or the Internet, often with higher penalties.
Not everything insulting is a crime. Context, truth, good faith, and whether the statement is fact or opinion all matter.
Privileged communications (private reports made in the performance of a duty, fair and true reports of official acts, and certain official proceedings) may protect speakers unless actual malice is proven.
Both criminal punishment and civil damages are possible; acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically bar a civil action for damages.
Public officials and public figures must endure broader criticism, but not outright lies or baseless attacks.
In the digital age, Filipinos must be especially cautious: one reckless post can trigger criminal complaints, civil suits, or both.

This overview is for general information and education only and does not replace advice from a lawyer who can review specific facts and the most recent jurisprudence. If you are facing a concrete defamation issue—either as a complainant or as someone accused—it is wise to consult a Philippine attorney to evaluate the exact circumstances and available options.