Libel vs. Slander in Marital-Infidelity Accusations A Philippine Legal Primer
I. Defamation at a Glance
Under Philippine criminal law, defamation punishes “the unjust imputation of a crime, vice or defect which tends to dishonor or discredit another.” The Revised Penal Code (RPC) splits it into:
| Mode | Statutory basis | Usual medium | Generic name |
|---|---|---|---|
| Libel | Arts. 353-355 RPC | Writing, print, television, radio, film, photograph, internet* | Written defamation |
| Slander | Art. 358 RPC | Spoken words or sounds | Oral defamation |
| Slander by Deed | Art. 359 RPC | Acts, gestures or exhibition intended to cause dishonor | Defamation by conduct |
* Online posts, e–mail, text messages, vlogs, podcasts and social-media “stories” are treated as libel because the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175) expressly “takes the existing libel in Art. 355 and punishes it when committed through a computer system,” one degree higher than its offline counterpart.
II. Why Infidelity Accusations Are Particularly Serious
Marital infidelity is not just a moral lapse; adultery (Art. 333) and concubinage (Art. 334) are still crimes in the Philippines. Accusing someone of either therefore imputes a crime per se; malice is presumed (Art. 354) and the victim need not prove actual damage.
III. Elements & Penalties
| Libel | Slander (oral) | |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Imputation of a discreditable act (e.g., “He is committing adultery with X.”) | ✔ | ✔ |
| (2) Publication / utterance to a third person | ✔ | ✔ |
| (3) Identifiability of the offended party | ✔ | ✔ |
| (4) Malice (presumed unless privileged) | ✔ | ✔ |
| Penalty | Prisión correccional min.–med. (6 months 1 day – 4 years 2 months) or fine ≤ ₱200,000 (Art. 355 as amended by R.A. 10951). Cyber-libel: one degree higher. | - Grave oral defamation: Arresto mayor max.–prisión correccional min. (4 months 1 day – 2 years 4 months) or fine ≤ ₱200,000 - Slight oral defamation: Arresto menor (1 day – 30 days) or fine ≤ ₱20,000 |
Prescription: 1 year for libel; 6 months for slander; 12 years (DOJ view) for cyber-libel under R.A. 3326.
IV. Privileged Communications & Defenses
| Type | Rule | Typical marital-infidelity scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Absolutely privileged | No liability even if malicious. Applies only inside Congress, in pleadings, official reports, judicial opinions. | A sworn complaint for adultery filed with the prosecutor is immune. |
| Qualifiedly privileged (Art. 354 (1)-(3)) | Malice is not presumed—victim must show actual malice. | (a) A letter sent in good faith to the wife informing her of her husband’s affair. (b) Statement to a lawyer while seeking legal advice. (c) Answer to a barangay conciliation summons. |
| Truth with justifiable motive (Art. 361) | Accused must prove (a) truth of the charge and (b) social or moral purpose. | Affidavits backed by hotel CCTV records, offered solely to support an annulment petition. |
| Consent | If the supposedly aggrieved spouse consented to or authorized publication, no defamation lies. |
V. Notable Jurisprudence
| Case | Gist |
|---|---|
| Borjal v. CA (G.R. 126466, 14 Jan 1999) | Reiterated that truth alone is insufficient; good motives are equally essential. |
| Fermin v. People (G.R. 157643-45, 28 Mar 2008) | Tabloid columnist convicted for repeatedly calling a rival “mistress”; court stressed social repercussions of unverified infidelity claims. |
| Disini v. SOJ (G.R. 203335 et al., 11 Feb 2014) | Upheld cyber-libel; penalty one degree higher than Art. 355. |
| People v. Velasco (G.R. 195668, 13 Jan 2016) | Gestures—pointing at a woman and calling her “kabit” (paramour) in front of neighbors—constituted slander by deed. |
| Tulfo v. People (G.R. 161032, 16 Sept 2008) | Broadcast-media defamation is libel, not oral defamation, even if spoken over radio. |
VI. Civil Remedies
Even after a criminal case is dismissed or the offender is acquitted, the aggrieved spouse may bring an independent civil action for damages under Art. 33 of the Civil Code—covering moral, exemplary and nominal damages plus attorney’s fees. Public shaming that inflicts psychological violence may also violate the Anti-VAWC Act (R.A. 9262).
VII. Procedure in a Nutshell
- Document the utterance/post. Keep screenshots, audio, transcripts, witnesses’ affidavits.
- Barangay conciliation (Punong Barangay) is usually a jurisdictional prerequisite when parties reside in the same city/municipality unless the statement is published in mass-media or over the internet.
- File a sworn complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor within the prescriptive period.
- Pre-investigation & Resolution. If probable cause is found, an Information is filed in the proper RTC (libel/cyber-libel) or MTC (slander).
- Arraignment & trial, plea-bargain possibilities (e.g., slight oral defamation).
- Civil action may be filed simultaneously or reserved.
VIII. Practical Tips & Ethical Pointers
- Verify before you speak or post. Because adultery/concubinage are crimes, false attribution is automatically “grave.”
- Confine disclosure to legitimate channels (lawyer, counselor, prosecutor, church tribunal). Wide social-media exposure kills privilege.
- Avoid “naming-and-shaming” the alleged third party; she/he may also sue even if married parties reconcile.
- Consider settlement: A public apology and retraction, coupled with modest damages, often ends the dispute more cheaply than criminal litigation.
- Remember privacy statutes—secretly obtained intimate photos or CCTV footage, if published, can add liability under R.A. 9995.
IX. Key Take-Aways
- Medium matters: Written or broadcast accusations of infidelity = libel (or cyber-libel online); purely spoken = slander.
- Truth is not enough. You must also prove lawful purpose and good motives.
- Privilege narrows liability—complaints to authorities or candid consultations with counsel are protected, Facebook “rants” are not.
- Penalties differ (and cyber-libel is stiffer), but both criminal and civil venues remain open to the aggrieved spouse.
- Act quickly: 6 months for oral defamation, 1 year for libel, longer but still finite for cyber-libel.
This article synthesizes statutory provisions (Revised Penal Code Arts. 353-362; R.A. 10175; R.A. 10951), Civil Code doctrines, and leading jurisprudence up to July 7 2025. It is intended for educational purposes and does not constitute formal legal advice.