A practical legal article on oral defamation: what it is, when it applies, how to file, what to prove, defenses, procedure, and strategy.

Legal note: This is general information for the Philippine setting and not legal advice for any specific situation. Defamation cases are highly fact-dependent; if you’re considering filing (or you’ve been accused), consult a Philippine lawyer.

1) Slander vs. Libel vs. Slander by Deed (Know what case you’re really filing)

Slander (Oral Defamation)

Slander is oral defamation—a defamatory statement spoken and heard by someone other than the person being defamed. It’s penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 358.

Typical examples:

A person loudly accuses you of theft (“magnanakaw”) in front of customers.
Someone calls you a prostitute, adulterer, scammer, or corrupt official in a meeting with others present.

Libel (Written / Broadcast / Similar Media)

Many people say “slander” when they actually mean libel. Under the RPC, libel generally covers defamation through writing or similar means, and also certain broadcast/media forms. If the defamation is:

Posted (Facebook post, comment, X/Twitter, blog),
Printed (letters, flyers),
Broadcast (radio/TV), it is usually treated as libel, not oral slander.

Cyberlibel

If the defamatory matter is published through a computer system (social media, websites, messaging platforms when “published” to others), it may fall under cyberlibel (under the Cybercrime Prevention Act), which can affect where/how it’s filed and the potential penalties.

Slander by Deed

Separate from spoken words is slander by deed (RPC, Article 359): defamatory acts that insult or dishonor someone (e.g., humiliating gestures, public acts meant to disgrace), even without defamatory words.

Bottom line: The first “win” in a defamation case is charging the correct offense.

2) Elements you must prove in a slander case (Oral Defamation)

To succeed criminally, you generally need to establish these:

Defamatory imputation There must be an accusation, insult, or statement that tends to dishonor, discredit, or contemptuously portray a person.
It is directed at an identifiable person The victim must be identifiable by name or by context (“that cashier who stole money yesterday”—if people can tell it’s you).
Publication (heard by a third person) Someone else must have heard it (a witness). If it’s strictly one-on-one and nobody else perceives it, criminal defamation becomes much harder.
Malice In defamation, malice is typically presumed, unless the statement is privileged (see defenses).

3) “Serious” vs. “Simple” oral defamation: why it matters

Article 358 distinguishes between:

Serious oral defamation, and
Slight (simple) oral defamation.

There’s no single magic word list that makes it serious or slight. Courts look at context, including:

The nature of the words (accusing you of a crime or moral depravity tends to be treated more seriously),
The presence of many listeners (public humiliation),
Relationship and setting (workplace, barangay hall, public market),
The intention and manner (shouting, repetition, threats),
Whether it caused serious reputational harm.

Practical tip: When you file, you don’t need to “prove” serious vs slight at the start, but you should describe the context in detail so the prosecutor/court can appreciate gravity.

4) Defenses and “why slander cases get dismissed”

Before filing, check whether the other side can credibly raise any of these:

A) Privileged communications

Some statements are privileged (fully or qualified), such as:

Certain statements made in official proceedings or complaints,
Some communications made in the performance of a duty or to someone who has a corresponding interest.

If the communication is qualifiedly privileged, the complainant may need to show actual malice (bad faith).

B) Truth + good motives / justifiable ends

Truth alone is not always enough in defamation; context matters. A statement may still be actionable if it needlessly attacks private life or is made without justifiable purpose, depending on circumstances.

C) Opinion / fair comment

Opinions (especially on matters of public interest) are often treated differently from assertions of fact. Saying “In my view, he is incompetent” may be treated differently from “He stole money.”

D) No publication / no third-party witness

If no one else heard it (or witnesses are unreliable/biased), the case can fail.

E) Identity problems

If the statement doesn’t clearly point to the complainant, it can be dismissed.

5) Choosing your remedy: criminal case, civil case, or both

Option 1: Criminal case for slander (RPC Art. 358)

Goal: conviction + penalties, and civil damages may be included automatically unless reserved.

Option 2: Independent civil action for damages (Defamation)

Philippine civil law allows an independent civil action for defamation-related damages (separate from the criminal case). Goal: compensation (moral damages, exemplary damages, etc.).

Option 3: Both (with proper handling)

You may pursue both, but you must do it correctly:

The civil aspect is often deemed instituted with the criminal case unless you reserve or file separately as allowed by the rules.
Strategic choice depends on evidence strength, timelines, and your objectives (vindication vs. compensation vs. deterrence).

Practical tip: Many complainants primarily want an apology/retraction. A lawyer can use demand letters and settlement conferences effectively—sometimes faster and less draining than trial.

6) Evidence checklist (what you should gather before filing)

Because slander is spoken, witness and context are everything.

A) Witnesses

At least one credible witness who personally heard the words.
Preferably someone neutral (not a close relative/employee, if possible).

B) Exact words and context

Write down immediately:

The exact phrases (or as close as possible),
Date/time/place,
Who was present,
Tone/volume (shouted? whispered? repeated?),
Your immediate reaction and what happened after.

C) Recordings (if any)

Audio/video can be powerful, but be careful:

Courts may scrutinize authenticity and how it was obtained.
Even without recordings, credible witnesses can be sufficient.

D) Proof of damage (for civil aspect / damages)

Lost clients, termination, reprimands,
Messages from people asking about the accusation,
Emotional distress documented (where appropriate),
Community impact (e.g., barangay/community fallout).

7) Where and how to file a slander complaint (typical pathway)

Step 1: Consider barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay), if applicable

Some disputes require prior barangay conciliation before court/prosecutor filing, depending on:

Where parties reside,
The nature of the case and maximum penalty thresholds,
Exceptions (e.g., urgency, government parties, different municipalities, etc.).

Practical approach: Many lawyers check first whether the case is covered—because failure to comply when required can lead to dismissal.

Step 2: Prepare a Complaint-Affidavit

Your complaint-affidavit usually includes:

Your personal details and respondent’s details,
A chronological narration,
The exact defamatory words (or nearest recall),
Names/addresses of witnesses,
Attached supporting evidence (IDs, screenshots of context, any recordings, etc.),
A clear prayer (that respondent be charged with Oral Defamation under Art. 358, plus damages).

Step 3: File with the appropriate office/court

Common practice is to file with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (depending on locality), who evaluates and may file the case in court if warranted. In some situations, filing directly in the proper trial court may be allowed by the rules, but many complainants go through the prosecutor route.

Step 4: Respondent submits Counter-Affidavit

The respondent will be given a chance to answer, deny, justify, or assert defenses.

Step 5: Resolution on probable cause

If probable cause is found, an Information is filed in court.

Step 6: Court proceedings

Typically:

Arraignment,
Pre-trial,
Trial with witness testimony,
Judgment.

8) Venue and jurisdiction basics (what location matters)

For oral defamation, the important place is usually where the words were spoken and heard (place of commission). That typically determines proper venue.

Be precise in your affidavit about:

The exact barangay/city,
The venue type (office, store, street, meeting hall),
Who heard it there.

9) What outcomes to expect (and what courts can award)

Criminal penalties

Penalties depend on whether the slander is treated as serious or slight, and on circumstances.

Civil damages (often sought even in criminal cases)

Possible damages include:

Moral damages (humiliation, anxiety, sleeplessness, wounded feelings),
Exemplary damages (to deter, when circumstances justify),
Actual damages (provable financial loss),
Attorney’s fees (in proper cases),
Sometimes nominal damages when a right is clearly violated but loss isn’t precisely proven.

Settlements and apologies

Many cases end in:

Apology/retraction,
Undertaking not to repeat,
Compensation,
Sometimes community/HR/barangay mediated resolution.

10) Practical strategy (how to make a slander case stronger)

Do:

Document immediately and consistently (your affidavit should match early notes).
Use credible witnesses with clear testimony.
Describe context: why the words are defamatory, how public it was, why it harmed you.
Keep your own communications calm; avoid retaliatory posts/statements.
Consider a demand letter first if your goal is retraction/apology.

Don’t:

File the wrong case (oral slander vs libel vs cyberlibel).
Rely only on “everyone knows” without witnesses.
Assume prosecutors/courts will fill in missing details—defamation pleadings must be specific.
Exaggerate; overstatement harms credibility.

11) Special scenarios

A) Workplace slander

HR proceedings may run separately from criminal/civil remedies.
Witnesses may be coworkers; anticipate reluctance.
Consider whether internal grievance mechanisms and documentation can support your case.

B) “Chismis” and repeating accusations

Repeating defamatory accusations (“Sabi nila magnanakaw siya”) can still be actionable if it effectively republishes the imputation.

C) Group chats / voice notes / livestreams

These can shift the case away from “oral slander” toward libel/cyberlibel, depending on:

Whether it’s recorded/published,
Whether it’s transmitted via a computer system,
The nature of distribution and audience.

12) A simple outline you can follow for a Complaint-Affidavit (practical template)

Caption / Title (Complaint-Affidavit for Oral Defamation, Art. 358)
Parties (names, addresses, identifiers)
Narration of Facts
- Date/time/place
- Who was present
- Exact words
- How you were identified
- Immediate aftermath
Witnesses
- Names, addresses, what each heard
Why the statement is defamatory
- Dishonor/discredit/contempt, accusation of crime, etc.
Damages / harm suffered
- Emotional distress, reputation harm, financial impact
Attachments
- Witness affidavits (if available), any recordings, relevant documents
Prayer
- Request for filing of appropriate Information and award of damages
Verification / Signature + proper notarization as required

13) Quick “Is this slander?” self-check

If the answer is “yes” to most of these, you’re closer to a viable oral defamation case:

Was a defamatory accusation/insult spoken?
Did at least one third person hear it?
Can witnesses recall the substance and context reliably?
Can it be linked clearly to you?
Is it not primarily a written/posted/broadcast/cyber publication (which may be libel/cyberlibel)?
Is it not protected as privileged communication without proof of actual malice?

If you want, paste (1) the exact words said, (2) where it happened, (3) who heard it, and (4) whether it was recorded or posted anywhere—and I can help you classify whether the facts fit oral slander versus libel/cyberlibel, and map the most practical filing path and evidence plan.