Introduction

Oral defamation, commonly known as slander in the Philippine legal system, is a criminal offense that involves the spoken imputation of a crime, vice, or defect against another person, which tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. It is governed primarily by the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines, specifically Articles 353 to 359. Unlike libel, which pertains to written or published defamation, oral defamation focuses on verbal statements made in the presence of third parties. This article provides an exhaustive overview of oral defamation under Philippine law, including its legal basis, elements, penalties, procedural steps for filing a case, defenses, relevant jurisprudence, and related considerations. It is essential to note that while this serves as an informative resource, consulting a licensed attorney for specific legal advice is recommended, as individual circumstances may vary.

Legal Basis and Definition

The foundation of defamation laws in the Philippines stems from Act No. 3815, the Revised Penal Code, enacted in 1930 and amended over time. Article 353 defines defamation as "the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead."

Oral defamation is specifically addressed in Article 358, which distinguishes between two types:

Serious Oral Defamation (Slander by Deed or Grave Slander): This involves utterances that are grave in nature, such as accusing someone of a serious crime or moral turpitude, or actions that expose a person to public ridicule. It is punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period (from 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months) or a fine ranging from ₱200 to ₱6,000.
Simple or Slight Oral Defamation: This covers less severe insults or defamatory remarks, punished by arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) or a fine not exceeding ₱200.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) extended defamation provisions to online contexts, but for purely oral statements (e.g., spoken in person or over the phone without recording), the RPC remains the primary law. If the oral defamation is recorded and disseminated online, it may escalate to cyber-libel.

Elements of Oral Defamation

To establish a prima facie case of oral defamation, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

Imputation of a Crime, Vice, or Defect: The accused must have attributed to the complainant a criminal act, moral failing, or personal flaw. This can be real or imaginary but must be specific enough to identify the offense.
Publicity: The statement must be communicated to at least one third person other than the complainant. Private conversations between the accused and the victim alone do not constitute defamation, as there is no publicity.
Malice: There must be intent to harm the reputation of the complainant. Malice is presumed in defamatory statements unless proven otherwise (e.g., through privileged communication). Actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) is required in cases involving public figures, drawing from U.S. jurisprudence incorporated via Philippine case law.
Identifiability: The complainant must be clearly identifiable as the target of the imputation, even if not named explicitly (e.g., through descriptions or context).

Failure to prove any element results in acquittal. For instance, if the statement is mere opinion or hyperbole without factual basis, it may not qualify as defamation.

Penalties and Civil Liabilities

Penalties for oral defamation are criminal in nature but can include civil components:

Criminal Penalties: As outlined in Article 358, penalties depend on the gravity. Courts consider factors like the social standing of the parties, the extent of publicity, and the impact on the victim's reputation.
Civil Damages: Under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, the victim may claim moral damages (for mental anguish), exemplary damages (to deter similar acts), and actual damages (e.g., lost income due to reputational harm). These can be pursued in the same criminal case or separately via a civil suit.
Aggravating Circumstances: If committed with treachery, abuse of superior strength, or in contempt of public authority, penalties may increase under Article 14 of the RPC.
Mitigating Circumstances: Voluntary surrender or lack of intent to injure may reduce penalties.

Probation is possible for first-time offenders if the penalty does not exceed six years, per the Probation Law (Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended).

Procedure for Filing a Case

Filing a case for oral defamation follows the criminal procedure under the Rules of Court and the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC). It is a private crime, meaning only the offended party (or their guardian/representative if incapacitated) can initiate it. Here's a step-by-step guide:

1. Pre-Filing Preparation

Gather Evidence: Collect witness statements, audio recordings (if any, obtained legally), or affidavits from third parties who heard the statement. Note that illegal recordings violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law (Republic Act No. 4200) and are inadmissible.
Assess Statute of Limitations: Under Article 90 of the RPC, the prescriptive period for slander is one year from the date the statement was made or discovered.
Venue and Jurisdiction: File in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) or Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) where the offense occurred, where the statement was first heard, or where the complainant resides (per Republic Act No. 1289 for libel/slander cases).

2. Filing the Complaint

Draft a Complaint-Affidavit: This sworn statement details the facts, elements of the crime, and supporting evidence. It must be subscribed before a prosecutor or notary public.
Submit to the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor: Pay the filing fee (minimal for indigent litigants). Include at least two copies for service to the accused.

3. Preliminary Investigation

The prosecutor conducts an investigation to determine probable cause. Both parties submit affidavits and counter-affidavits.
If no probable cause, the case is dismissed. If yes, an Information (formal charge) is filed in court.
Timeline: Typically 30-60 days, but delays are common.

4. Arraignment and Pre-Trial

The accused is arraigned (pleads guilty/not guilty). Pre-trial involves stipulations, witness lists, and possible mediation.
Under the Speedy Trial Act (Republic Act No. 8493), trial should commence within 30 days of arraignment.

5. Trial Proper

Prosecution presents evidence first, followed by the defense. Cross-examinations occur.
The court renders a judgment. Appeals can be made to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), then Court of Appeals (CA), and Supreme Court (SC) if involving questions of law.

6. Alternative Dispute Resolution

Parties may settle via compromise, but since defamation is criminal, settlement requires court approval and may not extinguish criminal liability unless the complainant desists.

If the accused is a public official, the case may involve the Ombudsman under Republic Act No. 6770.

Defenses Against Oral Defamation

Common defenses include:

Truth as a Defense (Article 354): If the imputation is true and made with good motives and justifiable ends (e.g., reporting a crime to authorities). Not applicable to private matters unrelated to public interest.
Privileged Communication (Article 354): Absolute privilege (e.g., statements in judicial proceedings) or qualified privilege (e.g., fair comment on public figures). Malice negates qualified privilege.
Lack of Malice or Publicity: Proving the statement was private or unintentional.
Opinion vs. Fact: Statements of opinion, if not presented as fact, are protected under freedom of expression (Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution).
Prescription: If filed beyond one year.
Double Jeopardy: If previously acquitted or convicted for the same act.

Relevant Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court decisions shape the application of defamation laws:

People v. Aquino (G.R. No. 201092, 2012): Clarified that malice is presumed in defamatory statements unless privilege applies.
Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014): Upheld defamation provisions but struck down some cybercrime aspects; emphasized balancing free speech.
Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle (G.R. No. 184315, 2009): Distinguished between public and private figures, requiring actual malice for the former.
Brillante v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118757, 2004): Held that exaggerated language in political discourse may not constitute defamation if hyperbolic.
Santos v. People (G.R. No. 161877, 2006): Ruled that slight oral defamation does not require proof of actual damage.

These cases illustrate the courts' tendency to protect free speech while punishing malicious attacks on reputation.

Special Considerations

Public Figures and Media: Higher threshold for defamation; must prove actual malice (New York Times v. Sullivan influence via Philippine adoption).
Online Amplification: If oral statements are recorded and posted online, it may constitute libel under RA 10175, with harsher penalties (up to 6 years imprisonment).
Reconciliation with Free Speech: The Constitution protects expression, but defamation is an exception when it infringes on honor (Article 19, Civil Code).
Remedies for Victims: Beyond criminal cases, victims can file for damages under tort law or seek injunctions against further defamation.
Indigenous and Cultural Contexts: In areas with indigenous peoples, customary laws may intersect, but RPC prevails unless exempted.
Recent Developments: With increasing social media use, courts have seen a rise in hybrid oral-online defamation cases. Proposed bills like the Anti-Fake News Bill may impact future interpretations, but as of 2025, no major changes to RPC defamation provisions.

Conclusion

Oral defamation remains a vital tool for protecting personal honor in the Philippines, balancing individual rights with societal order. Filing a case requires meticulous preparation, adherence to procedural rules, and strong evidence. While the process can be lengthy and emotionally taxing, successful prosecutions deter baseless attacks on reputation. Parties are encouraged to explore amicable settlements where possible, but for grave offenses, pursuing justice through the courts upholds the rule of law. Always seek professional legal counsel to navigate the nuances of your specific situation.