I. Terminology and Governing Law

Under Philippine criminal law, defamation is generally punished under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Code distinguishes defamation by the manner of publication:

Libel – written, printed, broadcast, or similar forms (including certain online posts under special laws/interpretations).
Slander (Oral Defamation) – spoken defamation.

“Oral defamation” and “slander” refer to the same offense in Philippine usage: defamation committed by spoken words, gestures, or other oral means. The core provisions are found in the RPC’s chapter on Libel, particularly the article on slander/oral defamation, read together with the general definition of defamation and related provisions (privileged communications, malice, and defenses).

Because defamation is both a criminal and potentially a civil wrong (damages), this article discusses the criminal elements while also noting civil consequences where relevant.

II. Core Concept: What Is Defamation?

In Philippine context, defamation is essentially an imputation—a statement attributing something to a person—that tends to:

Cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of that person, or
Blacken the memory of one who is dead.

The law protects reputation and honor—but it does not criminalize every insult. A critical dividing line is whether the utterance imputes a defamatory matter as understood in law and jurisprudence.

III. The Elements of Oral Defamation (Slander)

While formulations vary slightly in case summaries, the commonly recognized elements of oral defamation in Philippine law are:

There is an imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another person;
The imputation is made publicly (publication);
The imputation is defamatory (it tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the offended party); and
The imputation is made with malice (actual or presumed), unless the occasion is privileged.

Each element has practical sub-issues.

Element 1: Imputation of a discreditable act, condition, status, or circumstance

An “imputation” can be:

An accusation of a crime (“magnanakaw,” “rapist,” “estafador”)
An accusation of a vice or immoral conduct (“adik,” “pokpok,” “kabit”)
An assertion of a dishonorable condition/status (“anak sa labas,” “may STD,” “baliw”)
An allegation of behavior or character that lowers reputation (“corrupt,” “nanloloko,” “manloloko ng kliyente”)

Key point: It need not be a technical crime; it is enough that the imputation tends to damage reputation in the eyes of others.

Identification requirement: The offended party must be identifiable. It’s not necessary to name the person explicitly if listeners can reasonably determine who is being referred to from context (e.g., “Yung treasurer natin dito…” when there is only one treasurer and the audience knows them).

Element 2: Publication (the statement must be communicated to a third person)

Defamation requires that the defamatory statement be heard by someone other than the offended party. This is “publication” in the defamation sense.

If it is said only to the offended party and no one else hears it, the defamation element of publication is generally not met (though other offenses like unjust vexation or threats/coercion may be relevant depending on the act).
A statement made in a public place or in the presence of other persons usually satisfies publication if at least one third person heard and understood it.

Practical proof: Testimony of a third person who heard the words and understood their meaning is often decisive.

Element 3: Defamatory character (tendency to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt)

The test is generally whether the words tend to harm reputation—not whether the offended party actually suffered measurable harm.

Courts consider:

Natural and ordinary meaning of the words
Context and circumstances: tone, intent, relationship, setting (barangay meeting, workplace, social event)
Local usage: certain terms have particular defamatory meanings in Filipino languages and communities
Whether the statement is a mere opinion/epithet or a factual imputation

Mere insults vs defamatory imputation: Some utterances are insulting but may be treated as simple slurs without a clear imputation of a discreditable act. Others—even if short—carry a clear defamatory imputation (e.g., calling someone “magnanakaw” in front of others is commonly treated as an imputation of theft).

Element 4: Malice (presumed or actual), and the role of privileged communications

Malice in defamation refers to an intent to injure, or at least a wrongful motive, and is central to criminal liability.

Malice is generally presumed from the defamatory nature of the utterance.
The presumption can be rebutted if the statement falls under a privileged communication or if the accused shows good motives and justifiable ends.

A. Privileged communications (how they change the malice analysis)

Philippine law recognizes that some statements, even if defamatory, are made in contexts where society values free communication. These communications are generally categorized as:

Absolutely privileged – not actionable even if malicious (rare; typically limited to specific official proceedings and statements with immunity).
Conditionally (qualifiedly) privileged – actionable only if actual malice is proven.

In qualified privilege, the prosecution (or complainant) must show actual malice—meaning the statement was made with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true, or with ill-will that negates the protective purpose of the privilege.

Common examples of qualifiedly privileged contexts in practice include:

Statements made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty (e.g., reporting misconduct in good faith to authorities/management)
Fair and true reports and certain communications in official proceedings (subject to limits)
Complaints made to appropriate bodies, if done in good faith and without unnecessary publication

Important: Privilege can be lost if:

The statement is communicated to unnecessary persons (excessive publication)
The language is needlessly insulting beyond what the occasion requires
It is motivated by spite, not legitimate purpose

IV. Forms and Variations of Oral Defamation

A. Simple slander vs grave slander (seriousness level)

Philippine law treats oral defamation as either:

Slander (simple) – less serious forms; and
Grave slander – more serious, determined by context and the nature of the words.

Courts evaluate “gravity” based on:

The expression used (how offensive and damaging)
The circumstances (public setting, presence of many people, social standing, intent)
Whether the imputation is of a serious crime or deeply dishonorable conduct
Relationship of parties and whether the insult was deliberately public

This classification affects penalty and sometimes procedural handling.

B. Slander by deed (related but distinct)

Philippine law also recognizes defamation through acts rather than words, often termed slander by deed. Examples can include:

Public gestures that convey a defamatory meaning (e.g., spitting on someone in a humiliating manner, or making a gesture intended to brand someone as immoral)
Other acts intended to cast dishonor in public

Slander by deed has its own elements and analysis, but shares the core idea: a public act that dishonors a person.

V. Identifying the Person Defamed (The “Of and Concerning” Requirement)

A statement must refer to a specific person. Identification can be:

Direct: naming the person
Indirect: description so listeners can identify the person (“Yung bagong nurse sa clinic na naka-red hair…”)
By implication: context makes it obvious to the audience who is being referred to

If listeners cannot reasonably identify the target, the case weakens substantially.

VI. Truth, Good Faith, and Other Defenses

A. Truth (justification)

Truth can be a defense, but in Philippine defamation practice it is not always a complete shield on its own. Courts consider:

Whether the accused can prove the imputation is true
Whether it was made with good motives and for justifiable ends
Whether it falls within a privileged context

B. Absence of malice

The accused may rebut malice by showing:

Good faith
A legitimate purpose (e.g., reporting wrongdoing to proper authorities)
Lack of intent to defame
Reasonable basis for believing the statement was true

C. Privilege (qualified)

As discussed, if communication is qualifiedly privileged, complainant must prove actual malice.

D. Opinion vs assertion of fact

Pure opinions are generally harder to prosecute as defamation, but:

An “opinion” implying undisclosed defamatory facts can still be actionable
Courts look at whether the statement would be understood as alleging a factual, discreditable act/condition

E. Identity and publication defenses

“No one else heard it” (lack of publication)
“It wasn’t about the complainant” (lack of identification)
“The words were misunderstood; not defamatory in context” (meaning/context defense)

VII. Evidence in Oral Defamation Cases

Oral defamation often hinges on credibility.

A. Typical evidence used

Testimony of third-party witnesses who heard the words
Audio/video recordings (if lawfully obtained and properly authenticated)
Circumstantial evidence: setting, number of listeners, subsequent reactions
Prior incidents showing motive/ill-will (limited and context-dependent)

B. Practical difficulties

Exact words may be disputed; minor variations may not defeat the case if the defamatory meaning remains.
Courts may scrutinize whether witnesses are biased.

VIII. Procedure: How Oral Defamation Is Usually Filed

A. Venue

Usually filed where the defamatory words were spoken and heard (place of publication).

B. Complaint process

Many cases start with:

Complaint-affidavit before the prosecutor for preliminary investigation (depending on penalty and procedure)
Or direct filing where applicable under rules for certain minor offenses

C. Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

If the parties are residents of the same city/municipality and the case falls within barangay conciliation coverage (subject to exceptions), prior barangay proceedings may be required. Applicability depends on penalty level and statutory exceptions.

IX. Penalties and Civil Liability (General)

A. Penalty range

Penalties depend on whether slander is grave or not, and on statutory gradations. Grave slander carries a higher penalty than simple slander.

B. Civil liability

Even if criminal liability is not pursued or fails, civil damages may still be sought in certain contexts, but civil recovery typically depends on proof of wrongdoing and damages, subject to defenses and privilege.

X. Special Contexts: Workplace, Government Proceedings, and Online Voice Notes

A. Workplace accusations

Statements made to HR or management about misconduct can be qualifiedly privileged if:

Made in good faith
Directed only to persons who need to know
Not exaggerated or unnecessarily publicized

But shouting accusations in a public workspace or group meeting can create a stronger slander case due to publication and humiliation.

B. Statements in official proceedings

Statements in complaints, affidavits, and proceedings may be privileged to varying degrees depending on forum and relevance, but privilege is not unlimited—irrelevant attacks and excessive publication can remove protection.

C. Voice notes and calls

If the defamatory content is spoken but recorded and forwarded, the analysis can shift:

Original utterance is oral defamation if heard by third persons
Forwarding/republishing can create additional publication issues and potential liability

XI. Practical “Elements Checklist” for Evaluating a Case

A workable checklist for oral defamation under Philippine law:

What exact words/gestures were used? Do they impute a discreditable act/condition?
Who heard it besides the offended party? Identify third-party witnesses.
Is the offended party identifiable? Named or clearly pointed to by context?
Was it defamatory in context? Would ordinary listeners view it as damaging reputation?
Was there malice? Presumed from defamatory content unless privileged.
Is there a privileged occasion? If yes, can actual malice be shown?
Is it grave or simple? Consider the severity of the imputation and publicity.
Evidence strength Witness credibility, recordings, contemporaneous reports.

XII. Common Illustrations (Philippine Setting)

Calling someone “magnanakaw” in a barangay meeting in front of neighbors often satisfies imputation + publication + defamatory character; malice is presumed unless privilege applies.
Reporting suspected theft confidentially to HR with reasonable basis may be privileged; liability may require proof of actual malice or excessive publication.
Calling someone “pokpok” in public can be treated as grave depending on context, audience size, and intent to humiliate.

XIII. Key Takeaways

Oral defamation (slander) requires: defamatory imputation + publication to a third person + identification + malice (presumed unless privileged).
The biggest battlegrounds are usually: publication, context/meaning, and privilege/malice.
“Grave” vs “simple” slander depends on the words used and the circumstances, especially publicity and the seriousness of the imputation.