DEFENSE AGAINST AN ORAL DEFAMATION (“SLANDER”) CHARGE IN THE PHILIPPINES

A comprehensive guide for lawyers, accused persons, and interested readers

1. Statutory Foundations

Provision	Key Points
Art. 358, Revised Penal Code (RPC)	Defines oral defamation (slander) as “any serious and insulting remark or intrusion on the honor of another,” classifying it as serious or slight depending on gravity.
Art. 355, RPC	Enumerates libel by writing or similar means; cited here only to highlight the distinction from oral defamation.
Art. 361 & 362, RPC	Spell out the defense of truth and good motives and the mitigating circumstance of provocation or immediate vindication.
RA 10951 (2017)	Adjusted monetary fines and the arresto mayor periods attached to both serious and slight oral defamation.
Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 110–119)	Governs filing of complaints, venue, bail, plea, trial and appeal.
Local Government Code, ch. VII	Mandates barangay conciliation for most slander cases before a complaint may be filed in court, unless an exception (e.g., parties live in different cities) applies.

2. Elements the Prosecution Must Prove

There was an imputation of a discreditable act, condition or circumstance.
It was orally uttered—spoken, shouted, or even whispered—and published (i.e., heard by at least one third person).
The imputation was malicious, meaning made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard (malice is presumed once the defamatory nature is shown, save when a privileged communication exists).
The victim is identifiable, explicitly or by reasonable inference.
No lawful defense or privilege applies.

Failure on any element is fatal to the charge.

3. Classification & Penalties (after RA 10951)

Type	Guiding Test	Penalty (as of 2025)
Serious	Words are “grossly insulting, manifestly dishonorable, or produce social humiliation” (e.g., imputing a crime).	Arresto mayor (1 mo 1 d – 6 mo) & fine up to ₱ 20,000; or prision correccional in its minimum period when coupled with qualifying circumstances.
Slight	Less serious insults not meeting the above.	Arresto menor or arresto mayor in its minimum period & fine up to ₱ 10,000.

4. Substantive Defenses

Defense	Core Idea	Supporting Jurisprudence
Absolute Privilege	Statements made in Congress, Senate, official reports, pleadings or testimony during judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceedings—no liability, even if malicious.	Flores v. Mating (G.R. 47987, 1979); Sison v. David (G.R. 83864, 1989).
Qualified Privilege	(a) Fair comment on matters of public interest; (b) statements made in performance of a legal, moral, or social duty to a person with a corresponding interest; (c) mutual communications among parties with common interest. Malice must be proved, not presumed.	Borjal v. CA (G.R. 126466, 1999) – though a libel case, doctrine equally applies.
Truth + Good Motive	Art. 361: Defendant must prove the truth of the imputation and that the aim was lawful, for a justifiable purpose. Truth alone is insufficient.	People v. Velasco (G.R. No. 193858, 2013).
Lack of Publication	Nobody else heard the remark. Private quarrels with no third person present negate “publication.”	People v. Samonte (CA-G.R. No. 07815-CR, 1979).
Unidentifiable Victim	If listeners could not reasonably know the person referred to, no defamation lies.	People v. Santiago (G.R. 41139, 1934).
Absence of Malice	Effective only when a qualified privilege exists. Evidence of good faith, honest belief, or due care rebuts presumed malice.
Self-Defense of Honor	Under Art. 11(1), one may protect filial or personal honor by proportionate means; still rarely accepted but can lower gravity.
Consent or Condonation	Express waiver or forgiveness by offended party before institution of criminal action extinguishes liability.
Prescription	Oral defamation prescribes in one (1) year (Art. 90). If complaint is filed out of time, move to quash.
Barangay Non-Compliance	Failure to undergo mandatory conciliation (when required) is a ground for dismissal.

5. Procedural & Technical Defenses

Defective Information – vague description of the defamatory words, lack of date, place or manner.
Improper Venue – must be filed in the place where the remark was uttered or where the offended party resides.
Lack of Authority – complaint must be sworn to by the offended party or by her parents, grandparents, or guardian (Art. 360).
Double Jeopardy – prior valid dismissal or acquittal bars another prosecution.
Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial – undue delay attributable to the State warrants dismissal (Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, A.M. SB-14-21-RS, 2018).

6. Evidentiary Tactics for the Defense

Evidence	Purpose
Audio/video recordings	Show context, absence of publication, or provocation.
Independent witnesses	Establish the tone, exact words, or that nobody else heard.
Character evidence of complainant	In civil aspect (damages), show lower reputational harm.
Affidavit of Retraction/Settlement	May persuade prosecution to move for dismissal or plea-bargain.
Expert testimony (linguistics / culture)	When words might be idiomatic, jocular, or not defamatory in local usage.

7. Mitigating & Aggravating Circumstances in Penalty

Mitigating:

Provocation by the offended party (Art. 13 para 4);
Immediate vindication of a grave offense (Art. 13 para 5);
Voluntary surrender or plea of guilty.

Aggravating:

Insult or disrespect toward authority;
Use of humiliating means (i.e., public address system);
Recidivism.

8. Civil Liability & Alternative Dispute Mechanisms

Moral, exemplary, and actual damages may be claimed in the same criminal action (Rule 111).
Compromise/mediation – common in barangay or during judicial dispute resolution; an apology plus a modest indemnity often ends cases.
Probation may be granted if sentence ≤ 6 years.

9. Notable Supreme Court & CA Decisions (Oral Defamation Focus)

Case	Holding
People v. Labang (G.R. 228079, 2021)	Heated quarrel + provocation reduced liability from serious to slight.
Calleja v. Wan (G.R. 214334, 2018)	Barangay conciliation is jurisdictional; absence voids complaint.
Razon v. Gamboa (G.R. 177094, 2015)	“Son of a b—” uttered once in private, no third party: no publication.
People v. Velasco (G.R. 193858, 2013)	Truth justified calling a public official “plunderer,” but malice still presumed—accused failed good-motive prong.
People v. Malabanan (G.R. 150098, 2004)	Words “magnanakaw ka” (you’re a thief) spoken in market with many listeners = serious oral defamation.

(Earlier cases such as US v. Escalante [1903] still guide modern courts on distinctions between slight vs. grave insults.)

10. Practical Roadmap for the Accused

Consult counsel early to evaluate privilege, truth, or technical flaws.
Preserve recordings & witnesses immediately; memories fade.
Engage barangay mediation (if applicable); even non-settlement can toll prescription.
File a Motion to Quash based on jurisdictional or technical grounds when warranted.
Negotiate plea or civil compromise—penalties are often fines or short arresto; probation is usually available.
Avoid repeating the statement publicly; repetition may spawn fresh charges.

11. Conclusion

Defending an oral defamation case in the Philippines is a blend of substantive law, procedural timing, and tactical evidence management. Because malice is presumed, the burden often shifts to the accused to demonstrate privilege, truth with good motive, or absence of publication. At the same time, technical and jurisdictional lapses—especially around barangay conciliation, venue, and prescription—provide fertile ground for dismissal. Mastery of both statutory text and jurisprudential nuance is therefore essential. When deployed early and strategically, the defenses outlined above frequently result in acquittal, reduction of liability from serious to slight, or an expedient settlement that spares all parties protracted litigation.