Oral Defamation (Slander) and Unjust Vexation in Philippine Criminal Law
(All citations are to the Revised Penal Code [RPC] as amended, and to Supreme Court decisions up to April 29 2025. This article is for information only and is not legal advice.)
1. Legal Foundations
| Offense | Statutory Basis | Nature | Maximum Principal Penalty (after RA 10951 [2017]) | Civil Liability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral Defamation (“slander”) | RPC Art. 358; related procedural rules in Arts. 360 & 361 | Crime against honor | Grave: prisión correccional (min.–mid.) or fine ≤ ₱20 000 Simple: arresto menor or fine ≤ ₱20 000 |
Moral, temperate, exemplary & actual damages (Art. 100 RPC; Art. 2219 Civil Code) |
| Unjust Vexation | RPC Art. 287 | Crime against liberty | Arresto menor or fine ≤ ₱40 000 | Same as above |
Amounts reflect the inflation-adjusted fines under RA 10951 (₱200 → ₱20 000; ₱5 000 → ₱40 000).
2. Oral Defamation (Art. 358)
| Grave | Simple | |
|---|---|---|
| Test | Words or acts are “serious and insulting” in context (social standing, occasion, intent, language, gestures). | All other defamatory statements not rising to the level of grave. |
| Penalty | prisión correccional minimum & medium (6 mo. 1 day – 4 yrs. 2 mos.) or fine ≤ ₱20 000 | arresto menor (1 day – 30 days) or fine ≤ ₱20 000 |
| Examples (cases) | People v. Velasco (G.R. 138742, Apr 12 2000) – calling a lawyer a “swindler” in open court = grave. | Reyes v. People (G.R. 182950, Jan 30 2013) – spontaneous outburst “magnanakaw ka!” during neighborhood dispute = simple. |
2.1 Elements
- The offender uttered spoken words or performed acts amounting to slander.
- The words/acts were public (heard/seen by a third person).
- They were defamatory, i.e., tend to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt.
- Malice is presumed (Art. 354) unless privileged or under any of the recognized defenses (see § 2.4).
2.2 Procedural Notes
| Item | Rule |
|---|---|
| Who may file | Offended party (or heirs if deceased) must sign the complaint-affidavit (Art. 360 RPC). |
| Barangay conciliation | Required for simple oral defamation (penalty ≤ 1 year) if parties reside in the same city/municipality (Katarungang Pambarangay Law, RA 7160). Not required for grave slander. |
| Jurisdiction | Grave: Regional Trial Court (RTC). Simple: Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC/MeTC). |
| Prescriptive period | Grave: 10 years (Art. 90). Simple (light offense): 2 months (Art. 90-91). |
| Arrest without warrant? | Rare; normally through prosecutor’s inquest. |
2.3 Forms of Oral Defamation
- Direct: spoken insults, allegations of crime, imputation of vice.
- Slander by Deed (Art. 359): non-verbal act that casts dishonor (e.g., spitting in one’s face).
2.4 Common Defenses
- Truth of the imputation + good motives/justifiable ends (Art. 361).
- Qualified privileged communication (e.g., fair comment on public figures, judicial pleadings).
- Absolute privilege (statements made in legislative sessions, pleadings filed in court, etc.).
- Lack of publication (no third person heard/observed).
- Mistake in identity or absence of malice (rarely availing because of legal presumption).
3. Unjust Vexation (Art. 287)
3.1 Concept & Rationale
The law penalizes **any human conduct, without right, that annoys, irritates, or disturbs another in a manner that is neither physical assault nor one of the other specific crimes in the RPC. It is a catch-all offense to protect personal dignity and peace of mind.
“What is punished is the vexation itself, not the motive.” – Daayata v. People (G.R. 194388, Jan 29 2014)
3.2 Elements
- The offender acts without lawful right.
- The act annoys, irritates, disturbs or vexes the victim.
- No violence amounting to other crimes (e.g., coercion, serious physical injuries).
3.3 Illustrative Jurisprudence
| Case | Act Held to be Unjustly Vexing |
|---|---|
| Daayata v. People (2014) | Defendant cut a live TV cable of neighbor out of spite. |
| Doberes v. CA (G.R. 120095, Jan 30 1996) | Persistently knocking at victim’s door at midnight to force a conversation. |
| United Laboratories v. Isip (G.R. 232066, Jan 26 2021) | Non-consensual, repeated touching of female subordinate (also punished under Safe Spaces Act administratively). |
3.4 Penalty & Prescription
- Penalty: arresto menor (1–30 days) or fine ≤ ₱40 000.
- Prescription: 2 months (light offense).
3.5 Procedure
- Barangay proceedings are obligatory because penalty ≤ 1 year.
- If unsettled, file complaint-affidavit with Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
- Trial in MTC/MeTC; judgment may include civil damages.
4. Oral Defamation vs. Unjust Vexation
| Point of Comparison | Oral Defamation | Unjust Vexation |
|---|---|---|
| Primary value protected | Honor & reputation | Peace of mind & liberty |
| Key element | Defamatory imputation (dishonor) | Annoyance or irritation regardless of defamation |
| Publication | Must be heard/seen by a third person | Not necessary; private annoyance suffices |
| Penalty range | Up to 4 yrs. 2 mos. (grave) | Up to 30 days |
| Barangay conciliation | Required only if simple | Always required (except if parties reside in different LGUs or public officer in exercise of duties) |
| Typical defenses | Truth, privilege, lack of malice | Lawful exercise of a right or performance of a duty, lack of vexation |
Overlap?
A single incident may appear to fit both (e.g., shouting insults while bumping the victim). The prosecutor will normally charge the graver offense or both in the alternative; courts cannot convict for both if based on the same act (People v. Pelas G.R. 192540, Nov 13 2013). If the utterance is not defamatory per se but still distressing, the proper charge is unjust vexation.
5. Filing a Complaint: Step-by-Step
| Stage | Oral Defamation | Unjust Vexation |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Document incident | Secure witnesses’ names; record exact words, place & time. | Same, plus describe acts causing annoyance. |
| 2. Demand letter (optional) | Useful for possible civil settlement. | Same. |
| 3. Barangay conciliation | Mandatory only if simple slander. | Mandatory (KP Law). |
| 4. Complaint-Affidavit | Sworn statement; attach Certificate to File Action if KP failed. | Same. |
| 5. Preliminary investigation | City/Provincial Prosecutor; subpoena issued to respondent. | Same. |
| 6. Information & arraignment | Filed in RTC (grave) or MTC (simple). | MTC. |
| 7. Trial & judgment | Proof beyond reasonable doubt. | Same. |
| 8. Execution & damages | Writ of execution for civil award after finality. | Same. |
Note on Affidavit of Desistance — The complainant’s withdrawal does not automatically bar prosecution; criminal actions are public. However, for minor cases prosecutors often move to dismiss if desistance is sworn and restitution accomplished (People v. Melegrito G.R. 218440, Nov 28 2016).
6. Civil Remedies
Victims may recover:
- Moral damages (mental anguish, besmirched reputation).
- Actual damages (receipts showing medical or counseling expenses).
- Exemplary damages (to deter egregious conduct).
- Attorney’s fees when justified.
The civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal case unless the complainant expressly waives or reserves it (Rule 111, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
7. Defensive Strategies for the Accused
- Challenge jurisdiction & prescription (simple slander filed after 2 months is barred).
- Invoke privileged communication (e.g., statements in pleadings).
- Prove truth + good motive (Art. 361).
- Show absence of publicity (no third person).
- Mitigating circumstances: immediate vindication of a right, passion/obfuscation (Art. 13-11).
- Plea bargaining: courts may admit plea to unjust vexation or to vice-versa if factual basis exists (A.M. 19-06-10-SC Plea-Bargaining Guidelines).
8. Recent Legislative & Jurisprudential Updates (2017-2025)
| Development | Impact |
|---|---|
| RA 10951 (2017) | Raised fines; did not decriminalize defamation or unjust vexation. |
| Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313, 2019) | Certain sexually harassing acts formerly charged as unjust vexation are now prosecuted under § 11-12 (“gender-based street harassment”), carrying higher penalties. |
| Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) & People v. Tulfo (G.R. 243797, Aug 15 2023) | Cyber-oral defamation is possible if the slander is livestreamed or made in voice chat; jurisdiction lies with cybercrime courts. |
| Anti-Online Harassment Bill (pending 19th Congress) | Seeks to consolidate unjust vexation-type conduct when perpetrated online; still under committee as of Apr 2025. |
| Administrative Circular 08-2022 | Encourages mediation for “minor crimes against honor” to unclog dockets. |
9. Practical Pointers
For would-be Complainants
- Act quickly—light offenses prescribe in 60 days.
- Secure witnesses or recordings (if lawful).
- Undergo barangay conciliation first when required; dismissal for non-compliance is common.
- Prepare to testify; hearsay cannot sustain conviction.
- Beware of counter-suits (perjury, malicious prosecution).
For Accused Persons
- Attend barangay hearings—settlements here often avert criminal filing.
- Consult counsel early; statements given without advice may be used in court.
- Gather exculpatory evidence (context, provocation, lack of publicity).
- Consider compromise—although the action is public, prosecutors usually respect amicable settlement in minor cases.
10. Conclusion
Oral defamation and unjust vexation remain vibrant, frequently invoked offenses in Philippine courts despite calls for decriminalization. While both protect personal dignity, they diverge in the interest guarded (reputation vs tranquility), the elements, and the penalties. Mastery of their distinctions, procedural requirements (especially barangay conciliation), prescriptive periods, and available defenses is crucial for complainants, accused, and practitioners alike. By understanding the contours mapped above—and by seeking competent legal counsel when actual disputes arise—parties can navigate these complaints efficiently and justly within the Philippine criminal justice system.