1. What is “oral defamation” under Philippine law?

Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), “defamation” is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act or condition that tends to dishonor, discredit, or put a person in contempt.

Defamation comes in two basic forms:

Libel – defamation in writing or similar means (print, online posts, etc.).
Slander (oral defamation) – defamation by spoken words, sounds, or gestures.

“Public humiliation” is not a technical legal term, but in practice, it usually describes a situation where someone is insulted, shamed, or accused in front of others—in the street, in the workplace, at school, in a barangay assembly, etc. When this humiliation involves defamatory statements uttered in the presence of third persons, it often falls under oral defamation.

The governing RPC provisions include, among others:

Article 353 – Definition of defamation
Article 354 – Requirement of malice; exceptions (privileged communications)
Article 358 – Oral defamation (slander)

2. Legal bases and related laws

2.1. Revised Penal Code: Oral defamation (Art. 358)

Article 358 punishes oral defamation. It classifies slander as:

Grave oral defamation – when the insult is of a serious nature, attacking a person’s reputation in a substantial, often brutal way (e.g., calling someone a thief, prostitute, corrupt official, etc.); or when the circumstances make the insult particularly serious (public place, in front of subordinates, repeated, etc.).
Slight oral defamation – less serious insults or expressions that, while offensive, are considered relatively minor.

The penalty depends on whether the defamation is grave or slight. After RA 10951, the penalties are still essentially imprisonment (arresto mayor to prisión correccional) plus fines that have been increased from the very old amounts in the original RPC. Exact amounts change by statute, so it’s wise to confirm the current fine ranges before filing.

2.2. Civil Code remedies

Even if you pursue a criminal case (or even if you don’t), you may have civil remedies under the Civil Code of the Philippines, including:

Article 26 – protects a person’s dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind; prohibits vexing or humiliating another on account of religious beliefs, lowly station, etc.
Articles 19–21 – abuse of rights and acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Humiliating someone in public can be framed as an abuse of right or an act contrary to morals.
Article 33 – allows an independent civil action for defamation, separate from the criminal case, for the recovery of damages.

Through a civil case, an offended party may claim moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages (if provable), plus attorney’s fees.

2.3. Related special laws (possible overlaps)

In some situations, public humiliation linked to oral defamation may overlap with special laws, for example:

RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) – “psychological violence” includes acts causing emotional suffering, such as repeated verbal abuse and public humiliation within intimate or family relationships.
RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act) – may apply to gender-based online or public harassment, including sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic slurs in streets, workplaces, and educational institutions.

These do not replace oral defamation, but sometimes you can choose or combine remedies depending on the facts.

3. Elements of oral defamation (what you need to prove)

To successfully prosecute an oral defamation case, the following general elements must be present:

Defamatory imputation
- The statement must tend to injure reputation: e.g., calling someone a criminal, immoral, dishonest, corrupt, “bobo,” “loko,” etc., particularly if said in a way that suggests a serious defect or offense.
- Mere rudeness or a single spontaneous outburst may be treated more leniently (and sometimes only as slight oral defamation, or even not a crime at all, depending on context).
Publication (communication to a third person)
- It’s not enough that the offender said something to the offended party alone.
- The words must be heard or understood by at least one other person.
- Public humiliation almost always involves this element: the insult is done in public or in front of others—co-workers, neighbors, classmates, etc.
Identity of the offended party
- The statement must refer to a specific person, either by name, description, or context so that others can recognize who is being maligned.
- If the victim is not named but clearly identifiable from circumstances (e.g., “yung manager dito na nagnanakaw ng benta”), it may still be defamation.
Malice
- As a rule, defamation is presumed malicious under Article 354 (presumption of malice), unless it falls under privileged communication (see below).
- Malice in fact may also be shown: personal grudge, intent to humiliate, obvious animosity.
Unjustified and not privileged
- The statement must not be privileged, and the accused must not have a valid defense such as truth with good motives and justifiable ends.

4. Grave vs. slight oral defamation

The distinction is crucial because it affects penalty and how courts see the case.

Courts look at:

The words used – serious allegations of crimes, immorality, or dishonesty vs. minor name-calling.
The time, place, and occasion – insulting someone in a heated argument may be treated differently from humiliating them at a formal event or in front of their subordinates.
The social standing and relationship of the parties – insulting a superior, elderly person, or a person of known good reputation in a public setting may be deemed more serious.

Example tendencies (not hard rules):

Calling someone a criminal or accusing them of stealing, cheating, or having an affair in front of others → more likely grave.
One-time, relatively mild insults uttered in the heat of passion → can be considered slight.

5. When public humiliation is not oral defamation

Not all public shaming incidents amount to criminal oral defamation. Some examples:

No third person heard or understood
- If the insult was truly private (no one else heard, or no one else could understand), no publication exists. It may still be another offense like unjust vexation, or no crime at all, depending on facts.
Expressions of opinion, fair comment
- Criticizing a public figure’s official acts (“in my opinion, the mayor’s decision is incompetent”) can be protected as fair comment, especially in good faith and without malice.
- However, shifting from opinion about public acts to personal accusations (“she is corrupt and stealing funds”) crosses into possible defamation.
Privileged communications
- Absolute privilege: statements made by lawmakers in congressional debates, or by parties, counsel, and witnesses in judicial proceedings, if relevant to the issues, are generally not actionable.
- Qualified privilege: e.g., statements made in performance of a legal, moral, or social duty (like reporting suspected wrongdoing to proper authorities), provided there is good faith and no malice.
Truth as a defense (with good motives)
- Truth alone is not always enough. In criminal defamation, truth may be a defense only when the imputation is proven true and made with good motives and justifiable ends (e.g., exposing corruption in public service).
- Malicious “truth-telling” purely to humiliate without justifiable reason may still create liability in some circumstances (especially civil).

6. Evidence in oral defamation cases

Because the act is spoken, evidence often centers on human testimony. Typical forms:

Eyewitness testimony
- Witnesses who clearly heard the statement and can repeat, in substance, what was said.
- They must be able to testify that:
  - the accused uttered the words;
  - the words referred to the complainant; and
  - they understood the defamatory meaning.
Audio or video recordings
- Recordings from phones, CCTV, or other devices may help.
- However, be careful with RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law):
  - Secretly recording a private communication (phone calls, private conversations) without the consent of any participant can be illegal.
  - Public speeches or loud statements in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy are generally treated differently.
- It’s crucial to consult counsel before relying solely on a potentially illegal recording.
Screenshots / online posts accompanying spoken words
- If the public humiliation also involved online posts, this may raise libel/cyberlibel issues, separate from oral defamation.
Corroborating evidence of damage
- Medical records (e.g., anxiety, depression), employment records (loss of job, demotion), or written complaints can support a claim for moral or actual damages in civil cases.

7. Where and when to file: venue and prescription

7.1. Venue

For oral defamation, the criminal complaint is generally filed where the offense was committed, i.e.:

The place where the defamatory words were uttered; or
In certain situations, where they were heard and caused harm (especially if elements occurred in multiple places).

Venue rules can be technical; a lawyer can help ensure you file in the proper Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor and subsequently the proper court (usually the Municipal Trial Court / Municipal Circuit Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court, depending on the penalty).

7.2. Prescriptive period

Under Article 90 of the RPC:

Oral defamation and slander by deed generally prescribe in a relatively short period (shorter than libel).
The prescriptive period typically starts from the date the offense was committed or discovered (with nuances in case law).

Because oral defamation has a short prescription period, often measured in months rather than years, it is important to act quickly. If the prescriptive period lapses, the criminal case can be dismissed outright.

8. Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Before going straight to court or the prosecutor, many disputes must first pass through barangay conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law if:

Parties live in the same city or municipality; and
The case is not among the exclusions (e.g., offenses punishable by more than one year imprisonment or fine above a certain amount, cases involving government officials in their official capacity, etc.).

For many oral defamation cases (especially slight or even some grave ones), barangay conciliation is required as a condition precedent to filing in court:

You file a complaint before the Punong Barangay.
The parties are summoned for mediation and conciliation conferences.
If no settlement is reached, a Certification to File Action is issued.

Failure to secure this certification where required may result in the case’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

9. Step-by-step: filing a criminal case for oral defamation

Step 1 – Document and assess the incident

Write down what was said, when, where, and who was present—as soon as possible.
List names and contact details of witnesses.
Identify whether the statements were serious (possibly grave) or relatively minor (slight).

Step 2 – Consider barangay conciliation

Check whether both you and the offender reside in the same city/municipality.
If yes, go to the barangay hall of:
- Your barangay, or
- The barangay where the offense occurred.
File a complaint and attend the mediation/conciliation hearings:
- If settlement is reached, terms are written and signed; it may have the effect of a final judgment after a certain period if not repudiated.
- If settlement fails, ask for a Certification to File Action.

Step 3 – Prepare and file a criminal complaint

Go to the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (or sometimes the Office of the Municipal Trial Court in areas without a prosecutor) and file a Sworn Complaint-Affidavit stating:

Your identity;
The identity of the respondent (offender);
The facts of the case: what was said, when, where, who heard it;
How the statements were false, malicious, and defamatory;
The effect on your reputation, employment, mental health, etc.

Attach:

Barangay Certification to File Action (if required);
Affidavits of witnesses;
Any recordings, photos, or documents.

The complaint must be subscribed and sworn to before the prosecutor or an authorized official.

Step 4 – Preliminary investigation

The prosecutor will:

Determine if your complaint is sufficient in form and substance.
Issue a subpoena to the respondent, giving them a chance to file a counter-affidavit and supporting evidence.
Possibly require clarificatory hearings if needed.

After evaluating all evidence, the prosecutor will issue a Resolution:

If there is probable cause, an Information for oral defamation will be filed in the proper court.
If not, the complaint may be dismissed. You may appeal the dismissal to the Department of Justice within the proper period.

Step 5 – Court proceedings

Once an Information is filed:

The court issues a warrant of arrest or summons, depending on the circumstances.
The accused may post bail.
There will be:
- Arraignment (accused enters plea);
- Pre-trial (stipulations, marking of evidence, possible settlement);
- Trial (presentation of witnesses and evidence for both sides);
- Decision (acquittal or conviction).

If convicted, the court will impose the penalty (imprisonment, fine, or both). The offended party may also be awarded civil damages if claimed and proven.

10. Civil action for damages

Apart from (or in addition to) the criminal case, an offended party may:

Reserve the right to file a separate civil action in the criminal case; or
File an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code for defamation.

In a civil case, you typically claim:

Moral damages – for mental anguish, wounded feelings, social humiliation, loss of peace of mind;
Exemplary damages – to deter similar behavior in the future;
Actual damages – for quantifiable losses (e.g., loss of employment or income) if proven;
Attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

The standard of proof in civil cases is preponderance of evidence, lower than “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases.

11. Defenses and risks when filing

When you file an oral defamation case, be aware that the accused may raise:

Truth plus good motives and justifiable ends;
Privilege (e.g., statements made in court proceedings or in performance of duty);
Lack of malice or heat-of-passion argument;
Lack of publication (no third person heard);
Prescription (case filed beyond the allowable time);
Self-defense in defamation (responding to prior attacks).

There is also the possibility—though less common—that the respondent may file a counter-suit, such as:

Their own defamation complaint (if they claim you made false statements about them); or
A case for malicious prosecution, if they manage to prove you knowingly filed a baseless case out of malice.

Thus, it is important to have credible evidence and to avoid exaggeration or untruth in your affidavits.

12. Practical tips for someone publicly humiliated

Act quickly.
- Because of the short prescriptive period, do not “wait it out” for too long if you are seriously considering legal action.
Gather evidence immediately.
- List down witnesses and details while your memory is fresh.
- Preserve any videos, photos, or other documents.
- Encourage witnesses to make sworn statements early.
Evaluate your objectives.
- Do you want primarily a legal punishment, or an apology and acknowledgment of wrongdoing, or damages?
- Sometimes, barangay settlement or private mediation can achieve your goals faster than a full-blown trial.
Be realistic about time and emotional cost.
- Criminal and civil cases can take years and involve multiple court appearances.
- Public testimony may reopen painful memories.
Consult a lawyer.
- A Philippine-licensed lawyer can:
  - Assess if your case is likely grave or slight oral defamation, or perhaps better framed under another law (e.g., RA 9262, Safe Spaces Act, civil abuse of rights).
  - Draft strong complaints and affidavits.
  - Guide you through procedural requirements (barangay conciliation, venue, prescription, etc.).

13. Final notes

Filing an oral defamation case for public humiliation in the Philippines involves understanding both the substantive law (what counts as defamation, what defenses exist) and the procedural steps (barangay conciliation, preliminary investigation, trial). Public humiliation does not automatically guarantee a conviction, but when the legal elements are present and evidence is strong, the law offers both criminal and civil avenues to vindicate your honor and seek redress.

For any concrete situation, it is strongly advisable to bring all your documents, notes, and witness names to a Philippine lawyer so you can get advice tailored to the specific facts, the exact dates, and the applicable updated penalties.