Introduction

In the Philippines, the legal framework governing defamation, including slander, is primarily rooted in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of 1930, as amended. This body of law addresses acts that harm a person's reputation through false or malicious statements. The question of whether publicly calling someone "malicious" or "immoral" constitutes slander or defamation hinges on specific elements such as the nature of the imputation, the presence of malice, publicity, and identifiability of the victim. While such statements may not always rise to the level of a criminal offense, they can expose the speaker to liability if they meet the criteria for oral defamation. This article explores the relevant legal provisions, elements, distinctions between libel and slander, defenses, penalties, and related jurisprudence in the Philippine context.

Legal Basis: Defamation Under the Revised Penal Code

Defamation in the Philippines is criminalized under Articles 353 to 359 of the RPC. Article 353 defines libel as "a 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." This definition encompasses both written (libel) and oral (slander) forms of defamation.

Slander, specifically, is addressed in Article 358 as "oral defamation," which occurs when defamatory statements are made verbally rather than in writing. Calling someone "malicious" or "immoral" in public could qualify as slander if it imputes a vice or defect that discredits the person. The terms "malicious" and "immoral" imply moral turpitude or unethical behavior, which can be seen as defects in character tending to cause dishonor or contempt.

However, not every negative remark constitutes defamation. The RPC requires that the imputation be both public and malicious. Publicity means the statement is communicated to at least one third party, not just privately between the speaker and the subject. In a public setting—such as a gathering, speech, or broadcast—this element is easily satisfied.

Elements of Slander (Oral Defamation)

To establish slander, the following elements must be proven:

Imputation of a Discrediting Fact: The statement must attribute a crime, vice, defect, or similar circumstance to the victim. Labeling someone as "malicious" suggests intent to harm others, while "immoral" implies a lack of moral principles, potentially encompassing acts like dishonesty or ethical lapses. Philippine courts have interpreted such imputations broadly; for instance, accusing someone of immorality could relate to personal conduct if it implies scandalous behavior.
Malice: This is a key requirement. Malice can be actual (intent to injure) or presumed (malice in law, where the statement is defamatory on its face without justifiable motive). Under Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious unless it falls under privileged communications. If the speaker utters "malicious" or "immoral" with intent to harm reputation, malice is present.
Publicity: The statement must be made in the presence of others. In public forums like town halls, social events, or media interviews, this is met. Even if not broadcast widely, sharing with a small group suffices if it exposes the victim to potential ridicule.
Identifiability: The victim must be identifiable, either directly by name or through circumstances that make their identity clear to listeners.

If these elements are absent—for example, if the statement is a mere opinion without factual imputation or lacks malice—it may not constitute slander. However, context matters; hyperbolic language in heated arguments might be excused, but repeated public accusations could cross the line.

Distinction Between Slander and Libel

While both fall under defamation, the primary difference lies in the medium:

Libel (Article 355): Involves written or printed words, or similar means like drawings or broadcasts. If the accusation of malice or immorality is posted online, published in a newspaper, or shared via text, it could be libel, especially under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which treats online libel as a separate offense with potentially higher penalties.
Slander (Article 358): Purely oral, without a permanent record. Public verbal accusations fit here. Slander is further classified into:
- Simple Oral Defamation: Less serious utterances, punished by arresto menor (1 day to 1 month imprisonment) or a fine not exceeding P200 (adjusted for inflation in practice).
- Grave Oral Defamation: Serious accusations, such as those imputing a crime, punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months) or a fine from P200 to P2,000.

Calling someone "immoral" might be grave if it implies criminal immorality (e.g., linked to adultery or corruption), while "malicious" could be simple unless tied to specific harmful acts.

Defenses Against Defamation Claims

Several defenses can absolve the speaker:

Truth as a Defense (Article 354): If the imputation is true and made with good motives for a justifiable end, it is not defamatory. However, this applies only to imputations of crimes or official misconduct, not mere vices like immorality unless proven and relevant (e.g., in public office contexts). Proving truth requires evidence, and bad faith negates this defense.
Privileged Communications (Article 354): Absolute privilege applies to statements in official proceedings (e.g., legislative debates, court testimonies). Qualified privilege covers fair comments on public figures or matters of public interest, such as criticizing a politician's morality during an election. In these cases, malice must be proven by the complainant.
Opinion vs. Fact: Pure opinions, protected under free speech (Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution), are not defamatory if not presented as facts. Saying "I think he is immoral" might be opinion, but asserting "He is immoral because he did X" (if false) could be slander.
Consent or Waiver: If the victim consents to the statement or waives objection, liability may be mitigated, though rare in public settings.

The Philippine Constitution balances defamation laws with freedom of expression, but courts prioritize reputation protection under civil law principles (Civil Code Articles 19-21, 26 on abuse of rights and damages).

Penalties and Civil Remedies

Criminal penalties for slander vary by gravity, as noted. In addition, victims can seek civil damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code for defamation, independent of criminal action. Damages include moral (for mental anguish), exemplary (to deter similar acts), and actual (e.g., lost income from reputational harm).

Under the Cybercrime Act, if the public accusation occurs online (e.g., via social media live stream), it becomes cyberlibel, with penalties one degree higher than traditional libel.

Prescription periods: Criminal defamation prescribes in 1 year (Article 90, RPC), while civil actions last 4 years (Article 1146, Civil Code).

Jurisprudence and Case Examples

Philippine Supreme Court decisions provide guidance:

In People v. Larosa (G.R. No. 227149, 2018), the Court clarified that words imputing immorality, if malicious and public, constitute grave oral defamation if they seriously damage reputation.
Brillante v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118757, 2004) emphasized that accusations of malice must be evaluated in context; political speech enjoys wider latitude.
In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014), the Court upheld cyberlibel provisions but struck down some clauses, reinforcing that online public statements accusing immorality can be defamatory.

Courts consider cultural context; in a conservative society like the Philippines, imputations of immorality carry significant weight, potentially leading to higher damages.

Related Laws and Evolving Context

Beyond the RPC:

Anti-Cyberbullying Provisions: Under RA 10627 (Anti-Bullying Act) or RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act), public shaming involving morality could overlap if it involves harassment.
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173): If the accusation involves personal data, additional liabilities arise.
Public Figures Doctrine: Borrowed from U.S. law via jurisprudence (e.g., New York Times v. Sullivan influence in Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, 1999), public officials must prove actual malice for defamation claims.

In recent years, with rising social media use, cases of public verbal defamation have increased, often transitioning to cyberlibel. The Department of Justice and courts handle prosecutions, with the Ombudsman involved for public officials.

Conclusion

Publicly calling someone malicious or immoral in the Philippines can indeed constitute slander or defamation if it meets the RPC's elements of imputation, malice, publicity, and identifiability. While free speech is protected, the law safeguards reputation, imposing criminal and civil penalties on offenders. Speakers should exercise caution, ensuring statements are truthful, motivated by good intent, or privileged. Victims are encouraged to document incidents and consult legal counsel promptly, given short prescription periods. This balance reflects the Philippine legal system's commitment to both individual dignity and expressive freedoms.