Oral Defamation (“Slander”) for Offensive Messages in the Philippines

A comprehensive legal-practice primer, current as of July 10 2025

1. Statutory Foundations

Provision	Core Idea
Article 353, Revised Penal Code (RPC)	Defines defamation – imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act tending to dishonour, discredit, or contempt.
Article 358, RPC	Penalises oral defamation (slander). Distinguishes grave from simple slander.
Article 359, RPC	“Slander by deed” – defamatory acts, not words.
Article 361–362, RPC	Truth as defence; privileged communications (absolute & qualified).
RA 10951 (2017)	Adjusted monetary fines: • Grave slander: arresto mayor max.–prisión correccional min. or fine ≤ ₱200 000. • Simple slander: arresto menor or fine ≤ ₱20 000.
Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175, 2012)	Covers written/online defamation; oral defamation remains under Art 358 unless the spoken words are recorded/posted, in which case cyber-libel may attach.
Civil Code, Art 33	Allows an independent civil action for defamation, separate from the criminal case.

Key distinction: Oral defamation = words spoken and heard by at least one other person. Once fixed in a tangible medium (recording, SMS, post, e-mail with voice note), it normally becomes libel/cyber-libel, not slander.

2. Elements of Oral Defamation

Defamatory Imputation – statement must naturally tend to dishonour or discredit.
Publication – heard by a third person other than the utterer and the offended party.
Identifiability – person defamed is identifiable, expressly or by reasonable inference.
Malice – presumed malice in law once defamation is shown, unless the utterance is privileged; malice in fact may be proved to aggravate.
No Absolute Privilege – if utterance is not absolutely privileged (e.g., legislative debates, pleadings under oath).

3. “Grave” vs. “Simple” Slander

Factor Considered by Courts	Illustrative Cases & Guidelines
Language & Context	People v. Pareja – calling a woman “adulteress” publicly → grave. Anoos v. People – mere vulgar curse in heat of anger (“putang-ina”) → simple.
Social Standing/Relation	Insults to high officials or elders often elevated to grave.
Occasion & Publicity	Shouting “thief” during a barangay assembly vs. private quarrel at home.
Motivation & Manner	Calculated, repetitive, humiliating tirade → grave; spontaneous retort → simple.

Penalty tip: Whether the sentence could exceed six years (grave) or ≤ 30 days (simple) determines which court has jurisdiction (RTC vs. MTC) and whether barangay conciliation is a prerequisite.

4. Defences and Exemptions

Defence	Requirements
Truth + Proper Motive + Justifiable End (Art 361)	Accused bears burden to prove all three.
Absolutely Privileged Communication	Statements in Congress, judicial pleadings, official reports; no liability even if malicious.
Qualified Privilege	Fair comment on public interest matters; performance appraisals; spontaneous reports to an authority (e.g., barangay chair). Malice must be proved by prosecution.
Self-defence or Vindication of Honor	Proportionate, immediate response to an affront; rarely exculpatory but can mitigate.
Lack of Publication	No third-party hearer → no crime (see People v. Montes).

5. Procedure in Practice

Barangay Katarungang Pambarangay Mandatory conciliation if parties reside in the same city/municipality and penalty ≤ one year or fine ≤ ₱5 000 (simple slander). Grave slander is exempt.
Complaint-Affidavit filed with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
Preliminary Investigation – respondent submits Counter-Affidavit; subpoenas for witnesses/audio recordings.
Resolution & Information – if probable cause, case filed:
- Simple slander: Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court.
- Grave slander: Regional Trial Court.
Arraignment & Trial – oral testimony crucial; recordings and corroborating witnesses decisive.
Civil Damages – may be claimed in the criminal action (Art 100, RPC) or via a separate Art 33 civil suit.
Prescription – one (1) year from date of publication or from discovery if concealed (Arts 90–91, RPC; Panaguiton v. DOJ). Timely filing with barangay tolls prescription.

6. Evidentiary Highlights

Voice Messages / Calls: Recordings admissible if one party consents (People v. Dizon, 2017) or via lawful court order.
Social-Media Live Streams: Spoken insults during a live video are oral until stored; once posted, deemed written/cyber. Both liabilities can coexist.
Body-Worn Cameras: Increasingly used in workplace disputes; courts admit if chain of custody shown.

7. Penalties, Probation & Mitigation

Scenario	Imposable Penalty	Notes
Grave Slander	Arresto mayor max. (4 m 1 d–6 m) to prisión correccional min. (6 m 1 d–2 y 4 m) or fine ≤ ₱200 000.	Probation available if imprisonment ≤ 6 years and convict not previously sentenced.
Simple Slander	Arresto menor (1–30 days) or fine ≤ ₱20 000.	Often results in probation or suspension of sentence.
Mitigating Circumstances	Immediate apology, provocation, lack of publicity.
Aggravating Circumstances	Use of public platform (radio, livestream), disrespect to official, recidivism.

8. Recent Jurisprudence & Trends (2019 – 2025)

Bonagua v. People (G.R. 191532, 21 Jan 2015) – defamatory text messages are libel, not slander.
People v. Tumampad (G.R. 259856, 11 Nov 2021) – Facebook Live insults not yet stored treated initially as oral defamation; reposting created separate cyber-libel count.
Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. 235685, 14 Apr 2020) – administrative vs. criminal proceedings for the same insulting utterance can proceed independently.
Senate Bills 2120 / House Bills 417 & 894 (18th–19th Congresses) – propose decriminalising defamation or converting to purely civil offence; stalled as of July 2025.

9. Practical Guidance for Practitioners

Assess Publication – first hurdle; without it, file may fail at probable-cause stage.
Record Preservation – secure audio/video ASAP; request NTC data subpoenas for phone logs.
Choose Forum Strategically – sometimes filing a civil Art 33 action avoids the barangay prerequisite and focuses on damages.
Demand Letter / Retraction – a sincere public apology can mitigate to simple slander or convince prosecutors to recommend dismissal.
Cyber Overlay – for voice insults posted online, charge both Art 358 and RA 10175 in the alternative; court will convict on the proper mode.
Privilege Analysis – before filing, vet for privileged context: board meetings, disciplinary hearings, or police incident reports may be protected.
Plea Bargain – courts routinely accept pleas to oral defamation when libel charged, resulting in lower penalties.

10. Checklist for Filing / Defending an Oral Defamation Case

For the Complainant	For the Accused
□ Identify precise words & date/time uttered.	□ Examine privilege or truth defences.
□ Secure at least one corroborating witness or recording.	□ Gather evidence of provocation, heat of anger, or lack of publication.
□ Determine penalty range → venue → barangay conciliation.	□ Consider immediate apology to reduce gravity.
□ File within 1 year to beat prescription.	□ Explore probation eligibility; prepare character witnesses.

11. Common Pitfalls

Filing after barangay mediation failure but beyond 1-year prescriptive period.
Charging cyber-libel for purely spoken insults with no posting.
Misclassifying gravity – over-charging can backfire if evidence shows spontaneity.
Overlooking civil damages – complainants sometimes forgo the civil aspect; add Article 33 prayer.

12. Outlook

While criminal defamation remains constitutionally valid (Disini v. SOJ, 2014), global and local pressure to decriminalise persists. Until Congress acts, practitioners must navigate both traditional slander doctrines and modern realities of livestreams, voice messages, and hybrid online speech.

Disclaimer: This primer is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Consult Philippine counsel for case-specific guidance.