A complete practice guide for complainants, respondents, counsel, journalists, bloggers, and HR/comms teams

1) Quick primer: what counts as defamation

Libel (Arts. 353–362, Revised Penal Code): a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice/defect, real or imaginary, or any act/omission/condition that causes dishonor, discredit, or contempt, made in writing or other similar means (print, broadcast, online posts, e-mail blasts, etc.).
Slander / Oral Defamation (Art. 358): the same, but spoken (including speeches, meetings, radio shoutouts, recorded voice clips).
Slander by Deed (Art. 359): acts (not words) that cast dishonor (e.g., humiliating gestures in public).
Cyberlibel (R.A. 10175): libel committed through a computer system; penalty is one degree higher than libel.

Elements of libel (apply with adjustments to slander):

Defamatory imputation; 2) Publication (communicated to at least one person other than the subject); 3) Identifiability of the person defamed; 4) Malice (presumed in law, but can be negated by privilege or truth + good motive).

2) Where to file, who can file, and who can be sued

A) Venue (special rule: Art. 360 RPC)

Private offended party: file in the RTC (for libel) of (i) the province/city where the article/post was printed and first published, or (ii) where the offended party actually resided at the time of the publication.
Public officer: if the defamation relates to official functions, venue lies where the officer holds office at the time of publication, or where the article was first published.
Slander / Slander by deed: ordinary venue rules; typically the MeTC/MTC/MTCC of the place where the offense was committed.

B) Proper court & jurisdiction

Libel / Cyberlibel: Regional Trial Court (RTC) has exclusive original jurisdiction (a statutory exception to the usual “≤6 years goes to MTC” rule).
Slander / Slander by Deed: generally MeTC/MTC/MTCC.

C) Standing

Only the offended party (or authorized representative if a minor or incapacitated) may commence libel/slander complaints. Heirs may continue certain actions.

D) Who may be charged

Author (writer/speaker/poster), and in libel the editor, business manager, or publisher under Art. 360.
For online content, liability focuses on the original author/poster; the sweep of liability for “liking/sharing” has been narrowly construed in jurisprudence and policy. Platforms/operators are generally not charged as “publishers” absent specific participation.

3) Prescriptive periods (deadlines)

Libel (including cyberlibel, as a rule of thumb): 1 year from publication (or discovery, in narrowly recognized scenarios).
Slander / Slander by deed: 6 months from commission.

Filing a sworn complaint with the prosecutor or Information in court interrupts prescription. Never cut it close; file as early as possible.

4) Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay) — is it required?

Libel: No. Penalty exceeds the KP threshold; also special venue rules apply.
Slander / Slander by deed: Maybe. Required only if:
- Both parties are natural persons who actually reside in the same city/municipality,
- The case is not among KPI statutory exceptions (e.g., public officers in relation to office), and
- Penalty is within KP coverage (simple slander often is). If in doubt, perform KP conciliation first to avoid dismissal for non-compliance.

5) Criminal complaint workflow (step-by-step)

Stage 1 — Preparation

Collect evidence
- Libel: article/issue, certified copies, screenshots/URLs, full thread context, server timestamps, “who-saw-what-when,” engagement logs, and proof of identifiability (even if not named).
- Slander: audio/video recording (lawfully obtained), witness affidavits, event details (date, time, venue), and exact defamatory words used.
- Preserve metadata where possible (hashing files, downloading headers), and obtain PSA/ID/business records that prove the defamatory reference is to you.
Draft a Sworn Complaint-Affidavit
- Facts in sequence (who/what/when/where/how), why the statement is defamatory, falsity (or malice), how and when it was published, and damages suffered.
- Attach Annexes (A, B, C…) with legible copies; provide a chain-of-custody narrative for digital files.

Stage 2 — Filing with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor

File the complaint where venue is proper (see §2).
Subpoena & Counter-Affidavit: Prosecutor issues subpoena; respondent files a Counter-Affidavit with annexes.
Reply/Rejoinder (optional, if allowed).
Resolution: Prosecutor determines probable cause.
- Dismissal (no PC) or
- Filing of Information in the proper court. (For libel/cyberlibel: RTC; slander: MeTC/MTC/MTCC.)

Stage 3 — In Court

Judicial determination of probable cause (for warrant). Libel/cyberlibel and slander are bailable; bail is typically as of right.
Arraignment & Pre-trial: Plea; marking of exhibits; stipulations; possible plea bargaining (for slander variants).
Trial: Prosecution and defense present witnesses and evidence; cross-examination; memoranda.
Judgment; Appeal if adverse.

Parallel Civil action for damages

By default, the civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal case unless expressly waived or reserved. You may also file a separate civil action for damages (e.g., Articles 19–21, 26, 2219 Civil Code), but manage lis pendens and forum coordination.

6) Penalties, bail, and ancillary relief

Libel (Art. 355 as amended): prisión correccional (min.–med.) and/or fine (amounts updated by R.A. 10951).
Cyberlibel: penalty one degree higher than libel.
Slander:
- Grave slander: higher range within arresto mayor to prisión correccional (min.);
- Simple slander: arresto menor (and/or fine per R.A. 10951).
Damages: moral, exemplary, temperate/actual; attorney’s fees when warranted.
Mitigations: apology/retraction, lack of prior convictions, good faith, partial truth may mitigate but do not automatically absolve.

7) Defenses and how they work

Truth + good motives and justifiable ends (Art. 361): Truth alone is not enough for private persons; you must show good motive and justifiable end. For public officials on matters of public concern, truth carries stronger weight.
Privilege
- Absolute: statements made in Congress or judicial proceedings by privileged participants.
- Qualified: fair and true reports of official proceedings; good-faith complaints to authorities with legal, moral, or social duty to receive them; fair commentaries on matters of public interest that are opinions rather than false statements of fact.
Lack of malice: In qualifiedly privileged communications, malice is not presumed; the complainant must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).
Opinion vs. fact: Pure opinion (value judgment not asserting provable fact) is generally not actionable.
No identifiability / no publication: If a reasonable reader cannot identify the person, or no third person received the statement, the action fails.
Prescription / improper venue / lack of authority to sue: procedural defenses often decisive.

8) Online defamation (special notes)

Identify the “original publication.” For the one-year libel clock and venue, capture the first upload date/time and where the complainant resided then.
Preserve evidence early: full-page captures, HTML source, platform headers, server logs, IP (if lawfully obtainable), and Wayback-like snapshots (if available).
Republication (edits/retweets/reposts) can retrigger liability only when the defendant made a fresh publication; mere passive availability typically does not restart prescription.
Intermediaries: Charges target authors and active participants; mere platform status is generally insufficient without active role.

9) Corporate, media, and HR risk management

For media and corporate comms: institute pre-publication review, fact-checking logs, and right-of-reply protocols; keep editorial privilege records.
For HR/Managers: counsel employees on workplace chat posts, town halls, and social media; adopt acceptable use and anti-harassment policies to prevent intra-office defamation.
For NGOs/advocates: maintain documentary files backing public-interest statements; keep your good faith trail.

10) Evidence playbook (what prosecutors and courts look for)

Authenticity: certified printouts, device extractions, or testimony of the person who printed/received the post; hashes; audit trails.
Context: entire thread/article, not cherry-picked lines; headlines + body; captions to images/memes.
Identifiability: show how ordinary readers linked the post to you (photos, tags, initials paired with known traits, workplace hints).
Harm: proof of reputation damage (business loss, client drop-offs, HR actions), though not strictly required for conviction, can matter for damages.

11) Special topics

Retractions & apologies: may mitigate penalties/damages; can be part of compromise (civil) though the criminal action remains under the State’s control (affidavit of desistance may or may not lead to dismissal).
Multiple accused & solidary liability (civil): courts often award solidary civil liability among co-authors/editors.
Public figures: higher tolerance for criticism; actual malice standard applies in many contexts.
Employer liability: possible if the defamatory act is within assigned duties or the employer ratifies the act (civil).
Prior restraint: Injunctions against future speech are disfavored; remedies focus on damages and criminal liability after publication.

12) Checklists

Complainant (criminal libel / cyberlibel)

Verify deadline (1-year) and venue under Art. 360
Prepare Sworn Complaint-Affidavit + annexes (complete thread/context)
KP conciliation (only if simple slander and KP applies)
File with City/Provincial Prosecutor; monitor subpoenas and submit Reply
If Information is filed, prepare for bail, arraignment, trial
Consider separate civil action or allow civil action to ride with the criminal case

Respondent

Calendar prescription and venue defenses
Assemble defenses: truth + good motive; privilege; opinion; no identifiability/publication; lack of malice
Gather evidence (sources, interviews, fact-check notes)
Prepare Counter-Affidavit with annexes
Explore settlement/retraction to mitigate exposure

13) Templates (condensed)

A. Sworn Complaint-Affidavit (Libel)

I, [Name], of legal age, [address], state under oath:

On [date/time], at [place/URL], respondent [Name/handle] published an article/post titled “[Title]” stating, among others: “[verbatim lines]”.

These statements are false and defamatory because [facts]. I am identifiable as the person referred to by [explain].

Publication reached third persons as shown by [shares/views/comments/recipient affidavits].

I suffered [harm], attached as Annexes “A–__”. PRAYER: File the appropriate Information for [libel/cyberlibel]. (Signature) (Jurat/acknowledgment)

B. Counter-Affidavit (Defenses outline)

The statements are true and made with good motives, supported by Annexes “1–__”.

They are qualifiedly privileged as a fair report/complaint to authorities/fair comment on a matter of public interest; no actual malice exists.

No identifiability/publication; or statements are opinion, not provable assertions of fact.

The complaint is filed in the wrong venue / out of time. (Signature) (Jurat)

14) Bottom line

Libel (including cyberlibel) and slander are prosecuted through the prosecutor’s office, with strict venue and deadline rules that can make or break the case.
Evidence quality and procedural correctness (Art. 360 venue, prescription, proper parties) are often decisive.
Truth with good motive, privilege, and opinion remain robust defenses; for public-interest discourse, the actual-malice test applies.
File early, document everything, and choose the right forum—that’s how you protect reputation without overreaching into prior restraint of speech.

This article provides general legal information for the Philippine setting and is not a substitute for tailored advice on a specific incident, person, or publication.