General information only; not legal advice. Philippine statutes and court rulings change, and outcomes depend heavily on the exact words used, context, and evidence.

1) Two problems, two sets of crimes

A. “Death threats”

In Philippine criminal law, a “death threat” is usually prosecuted under the crimes of Threats in the Revised Penal Code (RPC)—most commonly Grave Threats (Article 282), but sometimes Light Threats (Article 283) or Other Light Threats (Article 285) depending on (1) what harm was threatened, (2) whether a condition or demand was imposed, and (3) the manner and context of the threat.

A death threat can also overlap with other offenses (for example, extortion-type situations, harassment/coercion, or special laws in domestic-violence settings), but the core charging logic usually starts with the RPC provisions on threats.

B. “Oral defamation”

“Oral defamation” is the RPC crime commonly called Slander: Oral Defamation (Article 358). It punishes defamatory statements spoken out loud (as opposed to written/printed defamation, which is libel). There is also Slander by Deed (Article 359) for insulting acts (not just words).

Oral defamation is typically classified as either:

Grave (serious) oral defamation; or
Simple (slight) oral defamation, based on the nature of the words, the circumstances, and the intent shown by context.

2) Picking the right criminal charge for a death threat

2.1 Grave Threats (RPC Article 282): the usual “death threat” charge

Concept: A person threatens to inflict a wrong amounting to a crime (killing is a crime), directed at another person (or their family), with intent to intimidate. Conditional threats (e.g., “I will kill you unless you do X / give me money”) are treated more severely.

Facts that commonly push a case toward “grave threats”:

The threat is to kill, shoot, stab, or otherwise commit serious violence (a felony).
The threat is serious and meant to be taken seriously, not clearly a joke, rhetorical flourish, or mere insult.
The threat is accompanied by a demand/condition (“give me money,” “withdraw your complaint,” “break up with him,” etc.) or is part of intimidation to control behavior.
The threat is delivered in a manner that increases intimidation (e.g., repeated messages, stalking-like conduct, showing a weapon, sending “proof” images, involving an intermediary).

Practical note on proof: Even if the threatened act never happens, the crime can exist. The prosecution focuses on the making of the threat, the seriousness, and the intent to intimidate shown by the surrounding circumstances.

2.2 Light Threats (RPC Article 283): threats with conditions but not necessarily a felony-type harm

Light threats generally cover threats involving a condition/demand where the threatened wrong may not clearly amount to a felony-level crime, or the circumstances make the threat less severe than Article 282. The dividing line is fact-specific.

2.3 Other Light Threats (RPC Article 285): “heat of anger,” brandishing, or less severe intimidation

Article 285 can apply to threats made in particular lower-severity scenarios (for example, threats made in the “heat of anger” or in a quarrel, or other forms of lesser intimidation). It is often considered when the situation looks more like a heated altercation than calculated criminal intimidation.

2.4 When a “death threat” might be charged differently (common overlaps)

Depending on facts, prosecutors sometimes consider other charges alongside—or instead of—threats, such as:

Coercion (forcing someone to do/stop doing something through violence or intimidation) if the objective is control rather than intimidation alone.
Robbery/extortion-type theories if the threat is used to obtain money/property (facts matter because some patterns resemble attempted robbery/extortion more than “threats” as a standalone).
Special laws (notably in domestic contexts): in situations involving an intimate partner or dating relationship, threats can fall under VAWC (R.A. 9262) as part of psychological violence, and protection orders may be relevant.

The “best fit” depends on the exact narrative and evidence.

3) Understanding Oral Defamation (Slander) under RPC Article 358

3.1 What makes spoken words criminally defamatory

A workable way to understand oral defamation in practice is that the prosecution typically needs to show:

A defamatory imputation The speaker imputes a crime, vice, defect, immoral conduct, dishonorable act, condition, or circumstance that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt toward the target.
Identifiability of the offended party The target must be identifiable—by name, nickname, description, or context—so listeners understand who is being referred to.
“Publication” (heard by someone other than the target) Defamation generally requires that the statement be communicated to a third person (someone else hears it). If the remark is made only privately to the target with no third party, the situation may not fit classic defamation (other offenses or remedies may be considered depending on facts).
Malice In defamation law, malice is commonly inferred from the defamatory nature of the statement unless it falls within recognized privileged communications. Context and motive matter.

3.2 “Grave” vs “Simple” oral defamation

Philippine practice distinguishes grave and simple oral defamation largely by:

The language used (extent of insult, vulgarity, explicitness);
The context (public setting, workplace, school, community meeting, livestream, etc.);
The relationship and provocation (whether it was a spontaneous retort in a heated exchange versus a deliberate character assassination);
The audience and harm (how broadly it was heard and its impact).

3.3 Slander by deed (RPC Article 359)

If the harm is done through an insulting act rather than words (spitting, slapping meant to disgrace, humiliating gestures), prosecutors may look at slander by deed.

4) Evidence: what to collect (and what to be careful about)

4.1 For death threats

Helpful evidence usually includes:

Screenshots of messages (SMS, chat apps, social media DMs), including the sender’s profile, timestamps, and the full thread for context.
Call logs and any voicemail/audio the sender provided voluntarily.
Witness affidavits from people who heard the threat or saw the threatening acts.
Incident reports: police blotter entry, barangay incident report, security logs (condo, mall, workplace).
Context evidence: prior harassment, stalking behavior, restraining/protection order history, prior demands, escalation pattern.

Preservation tips (practical):

Keep the original device/accounts intact.
Avoid “cleaning up” chats.
Record dates/times and the circumstances immediately while memory is fresh.

4.2 For oral defamation

Because it is oral, evidence often depends on:

Independent witnesses who heard the statement (ideally multiple).
Contemporaneous notes (who heard it, where, when, exact words as remembered).
Audio/video—with a major caution: the Anti-Wiretapping Act (R.A. 4200) penalizes unauthorized recording of private communications/spoken words. Recordings made in violation of the law can create legal risk and may be challenged. Whether a statement is “private” can be intensely fact-dependent (e.g., public shouting in a crowd vs. a private conversation).

4.3 Digital/online twist: “oral” vs “written,” and cyber issues

A defamatory post/comment/message is usually treated as written/online defamation (libel), not “oral defamation,” even if it feels like “speech.”
If a threat or defamatory act is committed through and with the use of ICT, R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) can affect charging and penalties (notably, it expressly covers cyberlibel; and it also has a general rule that certain crimes committed via ICT may carry higher penalties). Classification depends on how the act was carried out.

5) Mandatory barangay conciliation: when it applies, when it doesn’t

Under the Katarungang Pambarangay system (Local Government Code framework), some disputes between individuals who reside in the same city/municipality (often the same barangay) may require prior barangay conciliation before going to court or the prosecutor—especially for lower-level offenses.

Key practical points:

Many offices will look for a Certificate to File Action from the barangay when conciliation is required.
Exceptions commonly come into play for more serious cases (e.g., where the offense carries higher penalties, involves immediate threats to safety, or otherwise falls under statutory exceptions). Because the applicability turns on residence, relationship, and penalty level, offices sometimes differ in implementation; however, it is a recurring gatekeeping issue in real filings, particularly for “simple” slander-type cases.

6) Where and how to file criminal charges

6.1 Police blotter vs. criminal complaint

Police/PNP blotter: Useful for documentation, immediate assistance, and safety response. A blotter entry is not itself a criminal case, but it can support credibility and timeline.
Criminal complaint: The formal start of prosecution is typically a sworn complaint (often through the prosecutor’s office, depending on the offense and local practice).

6.2 The usual filing route: Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor

For many threat and defamation cases, the common route is:

Prepare a Complaint-Affidavit (sworn, detailed narrative).
Attach supporting evidence and witness affidavits.
File at the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor with required copies.

What happens next (typical flow):

The prosecutor issues a subpoena to the respondent.
Respondent submits a Counter-Affidavit and evidence.
Complainant may file a Reply-Affidavit.
The prosecutor evaluates probable cause and issues a Resolution (and, if warranted, files an Information in court).

6.3 Direct filing in court (for certain lower-penalty offenses)

For some offenses that do not require a full preliminary investigation (depending on the maximum imposable penalty), the rules may allow direct filing with the appropriate Municipal Trial Court/Metropolitan Trial Court. In practice, many still begin at the prosecutor’s office, but the correct path can depend on the charge level and local procedure.

6.4 Special procedural emphasis for defamation cases

Defamation cases are commonly treated with particular procedural formality:

They are typically pursued upon the complaint of the offended party (not simply “state-initiated” without the offended person’s active filing).
Timing is crucial (see prescription below).
The case theory must clearly establish publication (third-person hearing) for oral defamation.

7) Prescription (deadlines): why speed matters

7.1 Oral defamation: typically a short prescriptive period

Defamation offenses are commonly subject to a short prescriptive period (often one year) counted from commission. That means delay can be fatal to the case.

7.2 Threats: prescriptive period depends on the penalty category

For threats, the prescriptive period depends on the penalty classification tied to the specific threat provision and circumstances (grave vs light vs other light threats). Because the correct classification can change the deadline, prompt action is still the safest approach.

8) Penalties and consequences (high-level)

8.1 Death threats

Penalties vary widely depending on:

Whether the threat falls under grave vs light provisions;
Whether there was a condition/demand (which typically aggravates);
Whether the act involved writing/ICT/intermediaries (which can affect penalty level in some frameworks);
Any applicable special laws.

Consequences can include imprisonment, fines, and sometimes requirements like posting a bond to keep the peace/good behavior depending on the case disposition.

8.2 Oral defamation

Penalties vary depending on whether the slander is treated as grave or simple. Even “simple” slander can lead to criminal liability, plus potential civil damages (moral/exemplary/actual) when properly proved.

8.3 Civil liability is usually “along for the ride”

In criminal cases, civil liability (damages) may be impliedly instituted unless properly reserved or separately pursued under the Rules of Court.

9) Common defenses and friction points (what cases often turn on)

9.1 For death threats

Disputes often revolve around:

Seriousness and context (true threat vs insult/joke/anger).
Specificity (“I will kill you” + details vs vague bluster).
Intent to intimidate shown by surrounding acts.
Credibility and corroboration (witnesses, history, repeated conduct).
Identity of the sender in online cases (account ownership, device linkage).

9.2 For oral defamation

The hard issues are often:

Publication (who exactly heard it; are witnesses credible).
Identifiability (was the target clearly the complainant).
Privilege/good faith (was it part of a protected report or duty).
Provocation and context (heat-of-argument scenarios often downgrade seriousness).

10) A practical complaint-affidavit checklist (Philippine prosecutor style)

A strong complaint-affidavit commonly includes:

Parties and identifiers
- Full name, address, contact details of complainant
- Full name and address (or last known details) of respondent
Chronology
- Exact date/time/place of each threat/utterance
- What happened immediately before and after
Exact words (as close as possible)
- For threats: quote the threat, include condition/demand if any
- For oral defamation: quote the defamatory words and who heard them
Witnesses
- Names and addresses
- Separate witness affidavits
Evidence annexes
- Screenshots/printouts (with context)
- Incident reports, blotter entries
- Other corroborating documents
Harm and fear
- For threats: describe fear, security measures taken, changes in routine
- For defamation: describe reputational harm and the setting/audience
Certification and oath
- Proper signing, jurat, and compliance with filing copy requirements

11) Key takeaways

Death threats are most often charged as grave threats when the threatened act is a felony-level harm (like killing), especially with a condition/demand or serious intimidation context.
Oral defamation (slander) requires proof that someone else heard the defamatory words and that the complainant was identifiable.
Evidence strategy differs: threats lean heavily on messages, repetition, context, while oral defamation often rises or falls on credible third-party witnesses.
Barangay conciliation can be a procedural gatekeeper for lower-level disputes; serious safety threats often fall into recognized exceptions.
Defamation-related cases commonly have short prescription periods, so delay can destroy an otherwise viable complaint.