Here's a comprehensive legal article on the topic:

Liability for Oral Slander Based on Hearsay and Personal Opinions in the Philippines

I. Introduction

Slander, a form of defamation under Philippine law, involves a spoken defamatory imputation. The liability that arises from it is governed primarily by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Civil Code, and jurisprudence. The complexity deepens when the allegedly slanderous statement is based on hearsay or a personal opinion. This article explores the legal ramifications of such utterances, specifically in the Philippine legal context.

II. Legal Basis of Slander in the Philippines

A. Revised Penal Code

Under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code:

“Slander is the oral defamation of a person not falling within Article 354 (libel). It is punishable by arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) or a fine.”

Slander must involve a malicious imputation that:

Is made orally,
Is defamatory in nature,
Refers to an identifiable person, and
Is made publicly or in the presence of others.

B. Civil Code Provisions

Article 19 (abuse of right), Article 20 (wrongful acts causing damage), and Article 21 (moral damages for acts contrary to good customs or public policy) can apply in civil suits for damages arising from oral defamation, even if the criminal threshold is not met.

III. Hearsay and Its Effect on Liability

A. What Constitutes Hearsay in This Context?

In civil and criminal procedure, hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, for oral slander, hearsay refers more broadly to repeating unverified third-party statements that may damage a person’s reputation.

B. Can Repetition of Hearsay Be Slanderous?

Yes. Philippine jurisprudence holds that:

Repeating a defamatory statement made by another is not a defense.
The “I was just repeating what I heard” excuse does not absolve a person from liability.

Relevant Case: People v. Santiago, G.R. No. L-21082 (1966), established that even if a person merely repeats a defamatory remark, he or she may still be liable if there is intent to defame or reckless disregard of the truth.

C. Malice Presumed

In slander cases, malice is presumed under Article 354 of the RPC, unless the accused proves:

That the statement was true and made with good motives and for justifiable ends, or
It falls under privileged communications.

Repeating a slanderous hearsay statement without attempting to verify its truth may be construed as indicative of malice.

IV. Personal Opinions and Qualified Privilege

A. Opinion vs. Defamatory Statement

A mere opinion is not automatically defamatory. To determine liability:

The context of the statement is crucial.
Whether it contains an imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or dishonorable conduct matters more than whether it was couched as “opinion.”

Example:

Saying, “I think she’s a thief,” even though framed as an opinion, implies commission of a crime and can be considered slanderous.

B. Qualified Privilege

Statements that would otherwise be defamatory may be considered “privileged” if made:

In the performance of legal, moral, or social duties,
In official proceedings or reports, or
In good faith and without malice in defense of one’s rights.

But:

This privilege is lost when the statement is made with actual malice.

Case Reference: Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466 (1999), highlights the doctrine of “fair comment,” which allows criticism of public officials or matters of public interest, provided it is based on facts.

V. Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof

A. In Criminal Slander

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
- The accused made the defamatory oral statement,
- The statement refers to the complainant,
- It was uttered with malice.

B. In Civil Actions

The plaintiff must prove preponderance of evidence.
Proof of actual damages is not required for moral damages to be awarded if the statement is proven defamatory.

VI. Defenses Against Oral Slander

Truth of the Statement – Must be proven and must also be justified by good motive.
Privileged Communication – Must be made in good faith.
Lack of Intent to Defame – Must be supported by context and manner of speech.
Opinion on Public Figures/Issues – Protected under the doctrine of fair comment.

VII. Damages and Penalties

Criminal liability: Arresto mayor or a fine, or both.
Civil liability: Includes moral damages, exemplary damages, and nominal damages.
Aggravating circumstances (e.g., public setting, intent to insult) can increase penalties.

VIII. Conclusion

In the Philippines, a person can be held liable for oral slander even when the statement is based on hearsay or expressed as a personal opinion. Liability hinges not just on the substance of the words but also on the presence of malice, context, and the intent to defame. Hearsay repetition and opinion-based defamation do not provide absolute shields from prosecution, especially when the utterances damage another’s reputation without a factual basis or justifiable cause.

To avoid liability, one must ensure their statements are factually supported, made in good faith, and not motivated by ill will—particularly in a culture where reputation is highly valued and defamation laws are rigorously enforced.

Would you like this turned into a PDF, or need a shorter version for presentation or publication?