Introduction

In the Philippines, defamation laws are primarily governed by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), specifically Articles 353 to 359, which address libel and slander as criminal offenses. Slander, often referred to as oral defamation, involves spoken words that damage a person's reputation, while libel pertains to written or published defamatory statements. These laws aim to balance the protection of individual honor and reputation with the constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Facing a slander charge can be daunting, as it carries potential penalties including fines and imprisonment. However, defendants have several legal defenses available, and in some cases, they may counter with a libel complaint if the accuser has also engaged in defamatory acts. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the legal framework, elements of the offenses, available defenses, procedural aspects, and strategies for countering with a libel claim, all within the Philippine legal context.

Definitions and Distinctions

Slander (Oral Defamation)

Under Article 358 of the RPC, slander is defined as oral defamation, which consists of uttering defamatory remarks in the presence of others that tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt to the offended party. It is classified into two types:

Simple Slander: Involves less serious defamatory words, punishable by arresto menor (imprisonment from 1 day to 30 days) or a fine not exceeding P200 (adjusted for inflation in practice, but the RPC amounts remain nominal).
Grave Slander: Involves more serious imputations, such as accusing someone of a crime, vice, or defect, punishable by arresto mayor (imprisonment from 1 month and 1 day to 6 months) or a fine from P200 to P2,000.

Slander by deed, also under Article 359, involves acts (not words) that cast dishonor, such as slapping someone in public without justification, with similar penalties.

Libel

Libel, as per Article 353, is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt, through writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means. Penalties range from prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) or a fine from P200 to P6,000, or both.

The key distinction is the medium: slander is spoken and transient, while libel is recorded and potentially more permanent, often leading to broader dissemination and harsher penalties.

With the advent of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175), cyber libel was introduced under Section 4(c)(4), which includes online defamation with increased penalties (one degree higher than traditional libel). This is relevant if slander escalates to online libel in countermeasures.

Elements of Slander and Libel

To establish a slander or libel charge, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

Imputation of a Crime, Vice, or Defect: The statement must attribute something dishonorable to the victim.
Publicity: For slander, it must be uttered in the presence of at least one third person; for libel, it must be published or disseminated.
Malice: This can be actual malice (intent to harm) or malice in law (presumed from defamatory statements unless privileged).
Identification: The offended party must be identifiable, even if not named directly.
Tendency to Harm Reputation: The words or acts must blacken the honor or reputation of the person.

In cases like People v. Aquino (G.R. No. 201092, 2012), the Supreme Court emphasized that the imputation must be factual and not mere opinion to constitute defamation.

Defenses Against Slander Charges

Defendants in slander cases can invoke several defenses to avoid conviction. These are rooted in jurisprudence and statutory provisions.

1. Truth as a Defense

Under Article 354 of the RPC, truth is a complete defense if the imputation is made in good faith and pertains to a public official's conduct or a matter of public interest. For private individuals, truth alone is insufficient; it must also be shown that the publication was for a justifiable motive (e.g., Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169823-24, 2013). In slander cases, proving the statement's veracity requires evidence like witnesses or documents.

2. Absence of Malice

Malice is presumed in defamatory statements, but this presumption can be rebutted by showing good faith or lack of intent. For instance, if the words were spoken in the heat of anger without intent to defame publicly, it may mitigate liability (People v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 134568, 2000).

3. Privileged Communication

Article 354 recognizes two types:

Absolute Privilege: Applies to statements made in official proceedings, such as legislative debates, judicial testimonies, or executive communications. These are immune from liability (e.g., statements in court filings).
Qualified Privilege: Covers fair comments on public matters, reports of official acts, or communications in the performance of duty. To avail, there must be no malice, and the statement must be fair and accurate (Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, 1999).

In media-related slander (e.g., radio broadcasts), the doctrine of fair comment allows criticism of public figures without liability if based on facts.

4. Opinion vs. Fact

Expressions of opinion, not asserting facts, are protected under freedom of speech. The Supreme Court in MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da'wah Council (G.R. No. 135306, 2003) distinguished actionable factual imputations from non-actionable opinions.

5. Lack of Publicity or Identification

If the words were spoken privately or the victim is not identifiable, the charge fails. For example, vague insults without naming the person do not constitute slander.

6. Prescription

Slander prescribes after 6 months from the date of utterance (Article 90, RPC), providing a procedural defense if the complaint is filed late.

7. Mitigating Circumstances

Even if liable, factors like voluntary retraction, apology, or provocation can reduce penalties under Article 359.

Procedural Aspects in Defending Slander Cases

Preliminary Investigation

Slander complaints are filed with the prosecutor's office for preliminary investigation. The accused can submit a counter-affidavit to refute allegations, attach evidence, and argue defenses like truth or privilege.

Trial Proper

If probable cause is found, the case proceeds to the Municipal Trial Court (for slander) or Regional Trial Court (if penalties exceed certain thresholds). The defense strategy includes:

Cross-examining witnesses to discredit testimony.
Presenting affirmative defenses with evidence.
Motion to quash if grounds like prescription or lack of jurisdiction exist.

Appeals can go to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court if needed.

Under Republic Act No. 4363, defamation cases require prior publication of a retraction for media libel, but this is less applicable to pure slander.

Filing a Counter Libel Complaint

If the slander charge stems from a situation where the complainant has also defamed the accused (e.g., through written accusations), the defendant can file a counter libel complaint. This is not a mere defense but an offensive action.

Grounds for Counter Libel

The complainant's statements in the slander complaint or related documents/public statements must meet libel's elements.
Common scenarios: False accusations in affidavits or social media posts labeling the accused as a criminal.

Procedure

File a Separate Complaint: Counter libel is filed as a separate case with the prosecutor's office, not as a counterclaim in the slander proceedings, since both are criminal (not civil).
Elements to Prove: Same as libel, with emphasis on the written/published nature (e.g., complaint affidavits are considered published).
Strategic Considerations: Timing is key; file promptly to avoid prescription (1 year for libel). Use the counter complaint to highlight hypocrisy or mutual defamation, potentially leading to settlement.
Jurisprudence: In Torres v. People (G.R. No. 175074, 2011), the Court allowed counter actions where accusations were maliciously false.

If the slander involves online elements, escalate to cyber libel for stiffer penalties.

Civil Aspects and Damages

While slander and libel are criminal, victims can seek civil damages (moral, actual, exemplary) under Article 33 of the Civil Code, independently or alongside the criminal case. Defenses apply similarly. In counter actions, the accused can claim damages from the complainant.

Special Considerations in Modern Context

Social Media and Cyber Libel: With platforms like Facebook and Twitter, slander can quickly become libel if recorded or posted online. Defenses include platform terms or contextual memes as non-defamatory.
Public Figures: Higher threshold for defamation; actual malice must be proven (New York Times v. Sullivan influence via PH jurisprudence).
Decriminalization Efforts: Ongoing debates exist to decriminalize libel (e.g., bills in Congress), but as of now, it remains criminal.
Human Rights Angle: Invoke international standards like the UN Human Rights Committee views, which criticize criminal defamation laws.

Conclusion

Defending against slander in the Philippines requires a thorough understanding of the RPC, constitutional protections, and strategic use of evidence to prove defenses like truth, privilege, or lack of malice. Filing a counter libel complaint can shift the dynamics, holding the accuser accountable. Always consult a licensed attorney for personalized advice, as outcomes depend on specific facts and evolving case law. Proper handling can not only exonerate the accused but also deter frivolous complaints, upholding both reputation and free speech.