Disclaimer: The following discussion is for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. If you need advice regarding a specific legal question or situation, you should consult a licensed attorney in the Philippines.

Oral Defamation (Slander) in the Philippines

Oral defamation in the Philippines—often referred to as slander—is governed primarily by the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”). In essence, “oral defamation” penalizes a person who makes an untrue and malicious statement about another person, done orally and in the presence of others, resulting in damage to that person’s honor or reputation. This guide provides an overview of the laws, elements, defenses, penalties, procedures, and relevant jurisprudence concerning oral defamation in the Philippine setting.

1. Definition and Legal Basis

1.1. Defamation in General (Article 353, Revised Penal Code)

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines “defamation” (known in general as libel or slander) as:

“The public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person.”

Defamation can be committed in two primary forms:

Libel – through writing or similar means (e.g., print, broadcast media, social media in certain contexts).
Slander (Oral Defamation) – through spoken words or utterances.

1.2. Oral Defamation or Slander (Article 358, Revised Penal Code)

Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code specifically addresses oral defamation (slander):

“Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature (grave slander), and by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Pesos (₱200) if it is not of a serious nature (simple slander).”

This section provides the legal foundation for prosecuting individuals who commit oral defamation against another person, underscoring the seriousness of making defamatory statements in a public or semi-public setting.

2. Elements of Oral Defamation

To secure a conviction for oral defamation, the prosecution must generally prove the following essential elements:

Imputation of a Discreditable Act or Condition
There must be an imputation—an accusation or attribution—of a vice, defect, crime, or any condition or act that could dishonor or discredit a person.
Public Utterance
The imputation must be uttered orally and must reach or be communicated to a third party or multiple third persons, such that it becomes known or can become known to others besides the offended party.
Identifiability of the Offended Party
The remarks must refer to an identifiable person (whether directly named or described in such a way that people understand who is being referred to). Even if the person is not named, if it is clear that the defamatory statements allude to a particular person, that is sufficient.
Malice
The defamatory statement is presumed malicious if there is no good intention or justifiable motive for making it. Malice in fact (actual malice) may also be shown by proving that the offender knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. In general, malice is presumed once the defamatory act is established. The accused can try to rebut this presumption by proving lack of malice or existence of a lawful defense.

3. Distinguishing “Grave” from “Simple” Oral Defamation

Oral defamation under Article 358 is subdivided into two categories based on the “gravity” or seriousness of the defamatory statement:

Grave Slander / Serious Oral Defamation
- Defined by its insulting or serious nature.
- Usually involves the use of harsh, offensive, or insulting language directed against an individual in such a way as to expose them to public contempt or ridicule.
- Punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period (four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) months) to prisión correccional in its minimum period (six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months).
Simple Slander / Slight Oral Defamation
- A less serious, though still defamatory, utterance.
- Punishable by arresto menor (one (1) day to thirty (30) days) or a fine not exceeding ₱200 under the literal text of the Revised Penal Code. (Note that, in practice, courts have applied updated guidelines under more recent legislation, but the principle remains.)

The distinction often depends on both the language used (how harsh or insulting it was) and the context or circumstances under which it was uttered. Courts consider:

The words themselves (whether they are particularly demeaning or injurious).
The relationship or prior dealings between the parties.
The setting or circumstances in which the statement was uttered.

In some instances, repeated outbursts or extremely offensive words might be deemed “grave” rather than “simple.”

4. Penalties

As noted above, under Article 358, the penalties vary depending on whether the oral defamation is deemed grave or simple:

Grave Oral Defamation (Serious)
- Punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period (four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) months) to prisión correccional in its minimum period (six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months).
- Courts have a degree of discretion in imposing the exact duration of the penalty based on circumstances such as mitigating or aggravating factors.
Simple Oral Defamation (Slight)
- Punishable by arresto menor (from one (1) day to thirty (30) days) or a fine not exceeding ₱200 under the strict text of the RPC.
- In modern practice, courts might impose fines consistent with updated rules or guidelines.

Furthermore, if moral damages are claimed in a separate civil action or as part of the criminal case (pursuant to rules on civil liability ex delicto), the offended party may be awarded indemnification depending on the evidence and the extent of damage proven.

5. Important Procedural Points

5.1. Where to File the Complaint

Criminal complaints for oral defamation are typically filed with the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor where the defamatory statement was uttered (i.e., where the crime was committed). The offended party initiates a criminal complaint by submitting a Sworn Statement (Sinumpaang Salaysay) along with supporting evidence or affidavits of witnesses who heard the defamatory statement.

5.2. Preliminary Investigation

Once filed, the prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation to determine if there is probable cause to charge the respondent (the accused) in court. If the prosecutor finds probable cause, an Information is filed in the Municipal Trial Court (or Municipal Trial Court in Cities) or Regional Trial Court, depending on the penalty imposable and other factors.

5.3. Arraignment and Trial

If the court finds the charges sufficient to proceed, the accused is arraigned, and trial commences. Both prosecution and defense present evidence and witnesses. The judge then decides whether to convict or acquit based on whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

5.4. Prescription

Article 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code, along with special laws, govern prescriptive periods. Generally, crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribe in one year. Thus, a complaint or information for oral defamation should be filed within one year from the date the offended party learned of the commission of the offense (subject to nuances in jurisprudence). Timely filing is essential to avoid dismissal due to prescription.

6. Defenses Against Oral Defamation Charges

1. Truth (In Certain Cases)
While truth is more commonly a complete defense in libel cases, in oral defamation, truth may mitigate or negate malice if it is shown that the imputation is made with good motives and for justifiable ends. However, simply proving the statement’s truth does not automatically absolve the speaker of liability if it was done maliciously and without good motives.

2. Privileged Communication
The concept of privileged communication is more often invoked in written defamation (libel), such as in fair comment on matters of public interest or official proceedings. Nonetheless, a statement may be considered privileged if spoken in a context where the speaker has a legal or moral obligation to communicate it, and the audience has a corresponding interest (e.g., statements made during a lawful assembly with an official duty to speak). Privilege, however, is not absolute; it can be lost if the statement is proven to have been made with malice.

3. Lack of Publication / Communication to a Third Party
If the allegedly defamatory statement was never heard by a third party (i.e., uttered privately and not communicated publicly), there is no oral defamation under the Revised Penal Code. The essence of defamation is its publication or communication to someone other than the offended party.

4. Lack of Identifiability
If the allegedly defamatory statement does not identify or make it clear who is being defamed, the crime of oral defamation may fail. However, the prosecution can prove identifiability if the circumstances point to a specific individual.

5. No Malice (Good Faith)
While malice is generally presumed in defamation cases, the accused can attempt to rebut this presumption by showing that the statement was made in good faith or was a fair comment on a matter of public concern without any intention to harm the person’s reputation.

7. Notable Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court decisions have clarified various facets of oral defamation:

Bagtas v. Santos (G.R. No. L-11260) – Emphasized that for defamation to exist, the imputation must be malicious and capable of injuring one’s reputation.
People v. Reyes – Stressed the importance of context in determining whether the utterances are grave or slight. The same words, depending on context and the relationship between parties, can be considered differently by the court.
Roque v. People (G.R. No. 192190, 2012) – Highlighted the presumption of malice in defamation offenses, and clarified that the accused has the burden to show the absence of malice.
People v. Gomez – Discussed that even extemporaneous, emotionally charged outbursts may be deemed grave oral defamation if they are especially humiliating or delivered in a manner that publicly ridicules the offended party.

While the facts and citations can vary, these cases collectively emphasize that the gravity of the language used and the surrounding circumstances significantly influence the court’s determination of whether it is “grave” or “simple” oral defamation.

8. Civil Liability

In addition to criminal liability, a person convicted of oral defamation may be held civilly liable for damages. The offended party may claim moral, nominal, or even exemplary damages, depending on the circumstances. This can be done:

By joining the civil claim with the criminal case (an arrangement allowed under Philippine procedural rules).
By filing a separate civil action (under Articles 19, 20, 21, and 26 of the Civil Code, or under the general principles of quasi-delict, if the offended party opts to reserve the civil action or if the criminal action is not pursued).

9. Practical Tips and Considerations

Document Statements and Gather Witnesses
If you believe you are a victim of oral defamation, immediately record details and identify witnesses who heard the statements. Their sworn affidavits will be crucial in supporting your criminal complaint.
File Promptly
Because of prescriptive periods, prompt filing of complaints with the prosecutor’s office is essential to preserve your legal rights.
Consider Amicable Settlement
In some instances, parties may decide on mediation or settlement (especially for slight oral defamation), given that the potential penalties might be relatively short periods of imprisonment or small fines.
Consult an Attorney
Given the complexity of defamation cases, the assistance of counsel is highly advisable—whether you are the complainant or the accused.
Be Aware of Related Laws
- Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) – If a defamatory statement is posted online or via social media, it might be actionable under “cyber libel” rather than oral defamation.
- Administrative Regulations – Public servants and professionals might face administrative sanctions in addition to criminal/civil cases for defamatory statements, depending on their code of conduct and ethics.

10. Conclusion

Oral defamation (slander) under Philippine law protects individuals from malicious verbal attacks that may damage their reputation or honor. Governed primarily by Articles 353 and 358 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense requires the prosecution to prove defamatory utterances made publicly and maliciously, referring to an identifiable person. Depending on the severity, oral defamation can be classified as either grave or simple, with corresponding variations in penalties and liability.

Given the seriousness of being charged with oral defamation—or being a victim thereof—persons involved in such issues are encouraged to seek competent legal advice. Thorough documentation, witness statements, and prompt initiation of legal proceedings are vital to effectively prosecuting or defending against oral defamation charges.

Disclaimer Recap: This article provides a broad overview of oral defamation in the Philippines and is not a substitute for personalized legal counsel. If you are involved in or anticipate an oral defamation case, it is recommended to consult a licensed Philippine attorney for advice specific to your situation.