A Philippine legal article on when “slander” can arise from remarks intended to be private but heard by others.

1) What “oral defamation” is under Philippine law

In the Philippines, defamation is primarily governed by the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

Defamation (general definition) – Article 353 (Libel) defines libel broadly as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect (real or imaginary), act/omission/condition/status that tends to dishonor, discredit, or expose a person to contempt.
Oral defamation (slander) – Article 358 (Slander) penalizes defamation committed orally.
Slander by deed – Article 359 covers defamation expressed through acts (e.g., offensive gestures) rather than words.

Even though Article 353 uses the word “libel,” it supplies the working concept of defamation that applies across forms. Article 358 is the specific provision for spoken defamation.

Bottom line: If you defame someone by spoken words, the usual criminal charge is Oral Defamation / Slander (Art. 358, RPC).

2) The key elements of oral defamation (slander)

To sustain a criminal charge for oral defamation, the prosecution typically must establish:

Imputation – There was an allegation or statement that attributes to a person:
- a crime; or
- a vice/defect; or
- any condition or circumstance that tends to cause dishonor/discredit/contempt.
Identifiability – The person defamed was identified or identifiable (named, pointed to, or otherwise reasonably determinable).
Publication – The defamatory words were communicated to at least one third person (someone other than the speaker and the person defamed).
Malice – The statement was made with malice (in defamation law, malice is often presumed from the defamatory nature of the statement, subject to recognized exceptions like privileged communications).
Defamatory meaning – The words must be understood in their plain and natural meaning, considering context, tone, and circumstances.

Among these, the most important for overheard private conversations is publication.

3) “Publication” in spoken defamation: why overhearing matters

A. What counts as publication

Publication in defamation means the statement reached a third person who heard and understood it. For oral defamation, it can be as simple as:

the speaker telling a friend “X is a thief,”
in a place where that friend hears it.

B. If it was said only to the person insulted

If the remark is made only to the person allegedly defamed (no one else hears it), publication is generally absent, and criminal defamation typically won’t lie—though other offenses or civil claims might still be considered depending on facts (e.g., unjust vexation, threats, or civil damages).

C. The “overheard private conversation” problem

The hard cases are when the speaker claims:

“I was speaking privately—someone just overheard.”

In those cases, the core question becomes:

Was there legally sufficient “publication” to a third person?

In practice, courts assess publication in overhearing scenarios by looking at circumstances, such as:

Where it happened (home vs. public place; enclosed office vs. open hallway)
Volume and manner (whispered vs. loud; careful privacy vs. reckless openness)
Foreseeability (should the speaker reasonably expect others could hear?)
Actual third-party hearing (who heard it, where they were, and whether they understood)

A useful way to think about it:

If a third person actually heard and understood, publication may be present.
But if the situation shows the speaker took reasonable steps to keep it private and the “publication” occurred only through unusual eavesdropping, the defense will argue publication was not legally attributable to the speaker (or that the setting negates malice/intent).

Philippine defamation law is highly fact-sensitive here. The same words can lead to different outcomes depending on setting and conduct.

4) Common scenarios: when overheard speech is more (or less) likely chargeable

Scenario 1: Private whisper at home; a hidden listener overhears

Chargeability risk: Lower (publication is contested).
Why: The defense can argue the speaker did not “publish” in any meaningful legal sense because the setting was genuinely private and overhearing required deliberate intrusion.

Scenario 2: “Private” talk in an office hallway, cafeteria, elevator, jeepney, waiting area

Chargeability risk: Higher.
Why: These are places where others are naturally present. If you speak loudly enough to be heard, publication is easier to prove.

Scenario 3: Group chat in person, but claimed to be “confidential”

Chargeability risk: High.
Why: The moment you tell it to someone else, that’s already publication to a third person—overhearing becomes secondary.

Scenario 4: You say it to Person A about Person B; Person C overhears

Chargeability risk: High.
Why: Publication already occurred to Person A. The fact Person C also overheard usually strengthens the claim.

Scenario 5: You said it directly to Person B (the target), but in a public place

Chargeability risk: Moderate to high.
Why: Even though it’s “directed” at the target, if others heard, publication may exist.

5) What kind of statements qualify as oral defamation

Typical examples include spoken accusations like:

“Magnanakaw siya.” (imputation of theft)
“Adik ’yan.” (imputation of drug use)
“Pokpok/prostitute ’yan.” (imputation of immoral conduct)
“Corrupt ’yan.” (imputation affecting reputation)

Not every insult is automatically “defamation.” Courts often distinguish:

Mere expressions of anger or vulgar language (sometimes treated as insult without a concrete imputation), versus
Statements that impute a specific crime/vice/defect likely to damage reputation.

Context is everything: tone, relationship, provocation, and whether the words were clearly meant as a factual assertion.

6) “Grave” vs. “Slight” oral defamation (and why it matters)

Article 358 recognizes that oral defamation varies in seriousness. In practice, cases are commonly framed as:

Grave (serious) oral defamation – more damaging words/accusations, said in a manner or context that aggravates humiliation or reputational harm.
Slight oral defamation – minor insults, less injurious expressions, uttered in transient anger.

Courts consider factors such as:

the nature of the words,
the social standing and circumstances of parties,
the place and occasion,
presence of provocation,
whether it imputes a crime or severe moral defect.

This classification affects penalty and often influences settlement posture.

7) Penalties for oral defamation

Under Article 358, penalties depend on gravity and are within the range of arresto penalties and/or fines (the exact penalty hinges on whether the court deems it serious or slight under the law and circumstances).

Because defamation penalties and fine ranges have been affected by various reforms and adjustments over time, litigants usually rely on the current sentencing practice in courts for expected exposure, but the headline point remains:

Serious oral defamation → higher arresto range and/or higher fine
Slight oral defamation → lower arresto range and/or lower fine

8) Prescription (deadline to file)

Defamation-related offenses have special treatment in prescription rules. As a practical matter, many practitioners treat defamation offenses as having relatively short prescription periods compared with other crimes, and the safe approach is:

Consult and act quickly—delays can jeopardize filing.
The counting generally runs from the date of publication/commission (i.e., when the third person heard it).

If you’re evaluating a real situation, treat timing as urgent.

9) Defenses and justifications that often decide these cases

A. Truth + good motives and justifiable ends

Truth alone is not always enough; defamation law often requires that a true imputation be made with good motives and for justifiable ends, especially when it touches private matters.

B. Privileged communications (very important)

Defamation may be privileged—meaning malice is not presumed, or liability is reduced—when it fits into recognized categories, such as:

Private communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty, addressed to a person with a corresponding interest (e.g., reporting misconduct to a supervisor in good faith).
Fair and true reports of official proceedings (subject to conditions).

Privilege is frequently invoked in workplace complaints, HR reports, and formal grievances.

C. Lack of publication (overheard-only cases)

This is often the main defense in your topic:

No third person heard it, or
The only “third-party hearing” occurred through abnormal or deliberate eavesdropping in a setting the speaker reasonably treated as private.

D. Lack of identifiability

If the target cannot be identified with reasonable certainty, defamation may fail.

E. Absence of defamatory meaning (context and figures of speech)

Hyperbole, sarcasm, or ambiguous language can be argued as non-defamatory in context.

10) Overhearing vs. recording: separate legal risks (RA 4200)

Overheard speech is one thing; recorded private speech is another.

The Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA 4200) generally penalizes unauthorized recording of private communications and the use or replay of such recordings, with limited exceptions.
If someone records a “private conversation” without required consent, that recorder may incur separate liability—independent of whether the words were defamatory.

So in disputes, both sides can face exposure:

Speaker: potential oral defamation (if publication exists)
Recorder: potential RA 4200 issues (if recording was unlawful)

11) Procedure in practice (how oral defamation cases typically start)

Affidavit-complaint filed with the prosecutor’s office (or appropriate venue depending on local practice).
Preliminary investigation (for cases requiring it) to determine probable cause.
If probable cause is found, Information is filed in court and the case proceeds.

Settlement dynamics

Oral defamation cases often involve:

apology/retraction,
undertaking not to repeat,
mediated settlement (where available/appropriate),
damages arrangements.

12) Practical guidance: if you’re assessing “can I be charged if it was overheard?”

Ask these questions:

Did any third person actually hear and understand the words?
Was the setting truly private, and did you act to keep it private?
Was it reasonably foreseeable others could overhear?
Were the words a specific imputation of crime/vice/defect, or mere insult?
Was the statement made as part of a duty (possible privilege), like reporting misconduct?
Is there reliable witness testimony about what was said, by whom, and in what context?

In overheard-conversation cases, the prosecution’s case frequently rises or falls on witness credibility and context.

13) Practical guidance: if you believe you were defamed by an overheard remark

Consider preserving:

names and contact details of witnesses who heard it,
the exact words (best recollection),
time/date/place,
surrounding context (provocation, tone, audience),
any subsequent repetition (repetition is new publication risk).

If there was a recording, be cautious: the legality of the recording can become a major issue.

14) Key takeaways

Oral defamation (slander) requires publication—a third person must hear and understand the defamatory words.
A “private conversation” that gets overheard can still lead to liability if the circumstances show it effectively became public (or was shared to a third person intentionally).
If the only third-party hearing happened through unreasonable or deliberate eavesdropping in a genuinely private setting, the defense will strongly contest publication.
Context determines whether it is grave or slight, affects penalty exposure, and often drives settlement.

General disclaimer

This is general legal information for the Philippine context and not legal advice. If you want, describe the setting (where it happened, who overheard, relationship of parties, exact words as recalled), and I can map it onto the publication/privilege/gravity issues in a structured way.