Introduction

In the Philippines, defamation laws protect individuals from false statements that harm their reputation. Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), defamation is categorized into libel (written or published) and slander (oral). Oral defamation, commonly referred to as slander, occurs when defamatory remarks are spoken rather than written. A common scenario involves derogatory labels like being called a "mistress," which implies infidelity or moral impropriety. This article explores whether such an accusation can form the basis for a lawsuit, examining the legal framework, elements required to prove the case, penalties, defenses, procedural aspects, and relevant jurisprudence in the Philippine context.

Legal Basis for Oral Defamation

The primary law governing defamation in the Philippines is the Revised Penal Code, enacted in 1930 and still in force today with amendments. Article 353 of the RPC defines defamation as the public and malicious imputation to another of a crime, vice, or defect—real or imaginary—or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. This imputation must blacken the memory of one who is dead or the honor or reputation of one who is alive.

Oral defamation falls under Article 358, which specifically addresses slander. It states: "Oral defamation shall be punished as slander." Slander is distinguished from libel (Article 355) by its mode of commission—spoken words versus written or printed material. However, the gravity of the offense can vary, leading to classifications of simple slander or grave slander, depending on the seriousness of the imputation and the circumstances.

In the case of being called a "mistress," this label typically imputes unchastity, adultery, or involvement in an extramarital affair, which can be considered a vice or defect that discredits a person's moral character. Philippine courts have historically viewed such accusations as defamatory, especially in a culturally conservative society where family values and personal honor are highly regarded.

Elements of Oral Defamation

To successfully sue for oral defamation, the complainant must prove four essential elements, as established by Philippine jurisprudence:

Defamatory Imputation: There must be an allegation of a discrediting fact. Calling someone a "mistress" qualifies if it suggests immoral behavior, such as being involved with a married person. The Supreme Court in cases like People v. Aquino (G.R. No. L-23908, 1966) has ruled that words imputing unchastity to a woman are inherently defamatory.
Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third person. In oral defamation, this means the words were spoken in the presence of others, not just privately between the accuser and the accused. If said only to the person concerned without witnesses, it may not constitute slander, though it could still lead to other remedies like moral damages in civil court.
Identification: The imputation must refer to the complainant in a way that they are identifiable. Even if not named directly, if the context makes it clear who is being referred to (e.g., through descriptions or circumstances), this element is satisfied.
Malice: There must be intent to injure or knowledge that the statement is false. Malice is presumed in defamatory statements unless privileged (see defenses below). In private communications, actual malice (malice in fact) must be proven, but for public statements, malice in law applies.

If these elements are met, a case for slander can be filed. Notably, truth is not always a defense in defamation cases under Philippine law; the statement must also be made with good motives and for a justifiable end.

Classification: Simple vs. Grave Slander

Oral defamation is classified based on severity:

Simple Slander: Involves light or less serious imputations, punished by arresto menor (1 day to 30 days imprisonment) or a fine not exceeding P200 (adjusted for inflation in practice).
Grave Slander: Involves serious accusations that deeply affect honor, such as imputing a crime or grave moral turpitude. Calling someone a "mistress" could be deemed grave if it implies adultery (a crime under Article 333 of the RPC) or causes significant public scandal. Penalties include arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) or a fine from P200 to P2,000.

The classification depends on factors like the social standing of the parties, the presence of provocation, and the extent of harm caused. In Luis B. Reyes' commentary on the RPC, grave slander includes words that are "highly scandalous and offensive."

Penalties and Remedies

Upon conviction, penalties under Article 358 are primarily correctional, focusing on fines rather than long-term imprisonment in modern practice, especially for first-time offenders. Courts may impose:

Imprisonment ranging from 1 day to 6 months.
Fines, which can be adjusted based on the offender's financial capacity.
Subsidiary imprisonment if the fine is not paid.

Beyond criminal penalties, the offended party can seek civil remedies under Article 33 of the Civil Code, which allows independent civil actions for defamation. This includes:

Moral Damages: Compensation for mental anguish, besmirched reputation, or social humiliation. Awards can range from P10,000 to P500,000 or more, depending on evidence.
Exemplary Damages: To deter similar acts, if malice is proven.
Attorney's Fees and Costs: Recoverable if the case is won.

In cases involving women accused of being a "mistress," courts have awarded substantial damages, recognizing the gender-specific impact on reputation in Philippine society.

Defenses Against Oral Defamation Claims

Defendants in oral defamation cases can raise several defenses:

Truth and Good Faith: Under Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious unless the statement is true and published with good motives for a justifiable end. However, this applies mainly to matters of public interest. Private accusations like calling someone a "mistress" rarely qualify unless proven true and necessary (e.g., in a legal proceeding).
Privileged Communication: Absolute privilege applies to statements in official proceedings (e.g., court testimonies), while qualified privilege covers fair comments on public figures or matters of public concern. In Borjal v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466, 1999), the Supreme Court emphasized that privilege does not protect purely personal attacks.
Lack of Malice or Publication: If the statement was made in jest, without intent to harm, or not heard by third parties, it may not constitute slander.
Prescription: Criminal actions for slander prescribe in 6 months from the date of commission, while civil actions have a 1-year prescription period.
Retraction or Apology: While not a complete defense, a public retraction can mitigate damages or lead to settlement.

Procedural Aspects: Filing a Case

To sue for oral defamation:

File a Complaint: Start with a complaint-affidavit at the prosecutor's office (fiscal) in the city or province where the offense occurred. Include witnesses' affidavits to prove publication.
Preliminary Investigation: The fiscal determines if there's probable cause. If yes, an information is filed in court.
Trial: In the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) for simple cases or Regional Trial Court (RTC) if graver. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Settlement: Many cases are resolved through mediation or affidavits of desistance, especially if the parties are acquaintances.

Victims should gather evidence like audio recordings (if legally obtained) or witness testimonies. Note that illegal recordings may violate the Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A. 4200).

Jurisprudence and Case Examples

Philippine courts have addressed similar cases:

In People v. Larosa (G.R. No. L-32343, 1971), the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for slander where the defendant called a woman a "concubine," deeming it grave due to the imputation of unchastity.
Disini v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 169823-24, 2013) discussed defamation in broader terms, but emphasized that personal honor is protected even against truthful but malicious statements.
In gender-related cases, rulings like People v. Aquino highlight that accusations affecting a woman's virtue are taken seriously, often resulting in convictions.

These cases illustrate that calling someone a "mistress" can lead to liability if it causes reputational harm without justification.

Special Considerations in Modern Context

While the RPC remains the core law, related statutes intersect:

Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act): If the defamation occurs online (e.g., via social media voice notes), it could be charged as cyberlibel, with higher penalties (up to 6 years imprisonment).
Republic Act No. 9262 (VAWC Act): If the slander involves psychological violence against a woman in an intimate relationship, it may be prosecuted under this law instead.
Cultural Nuances: In the Philippines, where Catholicism and family-centric values prevail, such accusations carry heavy social weight, influencing court sympathy toward complainants.

Public figures face a higher threshold, as per the New York Times v. Sullivan influence in Philippine law (actual malice required for public officials).

Conclusion

Oral defamation in the Philippines provides a legal avenue to address harmful spoken words, including being labeled a "mistress." If the elements are proven, one can sue successfully, potentially securing convictions, fines, and damages. However, cases require careful evidence gathering and consideration of defenses. Understanding these laws empowers individuals to protect their reputation while respecting freedom of expression boundaries.