Oral Defamation in the Philippines: Elements, Penalties, and Defenses

Also called “slander,” oral defamation is the public and malicious imputation of a discreditable act, condition, or circumstance against another, made by spoken words or other transitory means. It is primarily governed by Articles 353, 354, and 358 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.

I. What counts as “defamation” under Philippine law?

Defamation is any allegation or imputation that tends to dishonor, discredit, or contemptuously view a person, or to blacken their reputation. Under the RPC:

Libel covers written, printed, or similarly permanent forms (Art. 355).
Oral defamation (slander) covers spoken statements or those made by “transitory” means (Art. 358).
Slander by deed punishes defamatory acts (Art. 359).

A statement may be defamatory per se (its defamatory meaning is apparent on its face) or per quod (defamatory only in light of extrinsic facts).

II. Elements of Oral Defamation

To secure a conviction for oral defamation, the prosecution must establish:

Imputation There is an allegation of a discreditable act, condition, status, or circumstance concerning the offended party (e.g., imputations of crime, incompetence, immorality, disease, or traits that naturally tend to cause public contempt or ridicule).
Publication The statement was communicated to at least one person other than the offended party. If only the accused and the offended party heard the words, publication is absent. In group settings, it is enough that a third person actually heard and understood the defamatory import.
Identity The imputation refers to an ascertainable person—named expressly or identifiable by description, context, or innuendo.
Malice Malice is presumed by law (malice in law) from the mere fact of a defamatory imputation, unless the statement is privileged. If privileged, malice in fact (ill will or spite) must be shown.
Jurisdiction and Venue The offense is generally cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) and is filed where the defamatory words were uttered and heard by a third party (place of commission).

III. Grave vs. Simple Oral Defamation

Article 358 recognizes two levels:

Grave oral defamation: When the words are serious, insulting, and extremely offensive, considering the nature of the imputation, the status of the offended party, the occasion, place, and audience, tone, manner, and setting (e.g., public places, broadcast to many). Repetition or persistence may also aggravate gravity.
Simple oral defamation: Less serious instances not rising to the gravity above.

Courts evaluate the totality of circumstances, including:

The precise words used and their ordinary meaning;
The context (e.g., heat of the moment versus prepared speech);
Audience size and likelihood of widespread harm;
Relationship between parties (e.g., employer-employee, public official-citizen);
Cultural and social norms relevant to honor and reputation.

IV. Penalties (Article 358, RPC; fines adjusted by later laws)

Grave oral defamation: Arresto mayor (maximum) to prisión correccional (minimum). (Arresto mayor = 1 month and 1 day to 6 months; prisión correccional minimum = 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months.) Monetary fines also apply, as updated by subsequent legislation (notably the penalty-adjustment law in 2017).
Simple oral defamation: Arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) or fine (updated by later law).

Notes on practice: • Courts may impose both imprisonment and fine, or fine alone when the law allows. • Mitigating (e.g., passion or obfuscation, immediate provocation, voluntary surrender, plea of guilty) and aggravating (e.g., in public or in the presence of many, with insult to rank/age/sex, recidivism) circumstances affect the penalty within the range.

V. Malice, Privilege, and Burden of Proof

A. Presumption of Malice (Art. 354)

As a rule, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if true, unless the accused shows good motives and justifiable ends—or unless the statement is privileged.

B. Privileged Communications

Privileged statements rebut the presumption of malice. They fall into:

Absolutely privileged (no liability even if malicious):
- Statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their official functions (e.g., during sessions, within parliamentary privilege).
- Allegations, pleadings, and statements made in the course of judicial proceedings by parties, counsel, or witnesses if relevant to the issues.
- Certain official communications made by public officers in the lawful exercise of duty.
Qualifiedly (conditionally) privileged (actionable only upon proof of actual malice):
- Private communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty or to protect one’s legitimate interests (e.g., a warning to a supervisor about an employee’s conduct).
- Fair and true reports of official proceedings made in good faith and without comments or remarks.
- Fair comment on matters of public interest or on the conduct of public officers in the discharge of their functions; however, factual assertions embedded in the “comment” must be substantially true or made without reckless disregard of truth.

Effect on burden: If the statement is not privileged, malice is presumed and the accused must overcome it. If privileged, the complainant must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard; or spite/ill will).

VI. Truth as a Defense

Truth alone does not automatically exonerate in criminal defamation. The RPC requires that the imputation be made with good motives and for justifiable ends.
In practice, substantial truth coupled with proper purpose (e.g., protection of a legitimate interest, report to authorities, fair comment) is a potent defense.
For public officials/public figures on matters of public concern, constitutional standards trend toward requiring proof of actual malice; truthful, good-faith speech on public affairs enjoys heightened protection.

VII. Other Defenses and Doctrines

Lack of publication: Nobody else heard or understood the imputation.
Lack of identifiability: The statement did not refer to a determinate person.
Qualified privilege (see above): Duty/interest communications, fair report/comment.
Good faith and qualified reliance on official records or proceedings.
Consent: Prior consent to the statement (rare in practice).
Momentary outburst / heat of passion: Does not excuse, but may mitigate (can downgrade from grave to simple or lower the penalty).
Apology or retraction: Not a complete defense, but mitigating.
Prescription (limitations period):
- Oral defamation and slander by deed generally prescribe in six (6) months from the commission or discovery, under Article 90 of the RPC.
- Filing a complaint with the prosecutor interrupts prescription.
No actual malice (for qualified privilege): If the communication is privileged, absence of malice defeats liability.

VIII. Procedure, Venue, and Evidence

Filing: Typically initiated through a criminal complaint before the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor where the words were uttered and heard.
Preliminary investigation: Crimes with a maximum penalty below 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day may proceed without full preliminary investigation; however, prosecutors often conduct preliminary examination (verification and affidavits).
Venue: Where the oral statement was made and heard by a third person.
Evidence:
- Exact words (best evidence), context (who, when, where, how loud, how many heard).
- Witnesses who actually heard and understood the words.
- Circumstances to prove gravity (public setting, presence of others, intent).
- For defenses: proof of truth, privilege, good faith, or lack of malice.

IX. Civil Liability and Damages

A criminal action for oral defamation includes civil liability for moral, temperate, exemplary, and actual damages (if proven), plus attorney’s fees and costs. The offended party may:

Pursue civil damages together with the criminal case, or
Reserve the right to file a separate civil action. An apology or retraction may lower damages. Conversely, aggravating conduct (e.g., repetition, publicity, refusal to retract) can increase them.

X. Special Topics and Comparisons

A. Oral Defamation vs. Libel

Form: Spoken vs. written/printed/online.
Penalty: Libel typically carries higher penalties and longer prescription (one year for libel versus six months for oral defamation).
Venue rules: Libel has special venue rules; oral defamation uses ordinary criminal venue (place of commission).

B. Oral Defamation vs. Slander by Deed

Slander by deed punishes defamatory acts (e.g., publicly slapping someone to dishonor).
Oral defamation punishes spoken words.

C. Public Officials, Public Figures, and Public Concern

While the RPC governs elements and penalties, constitutional free speech jurisprudence affords broader latitude to speech on public affairs. In cases involving public officials/figures on matters of public concern, courts often look for actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) before imposing liability, especially where the speech is in the nature of fair comment.

D. Workplace and Family Contexts

Statements made intra-corporate (e.g., HR investigations) or within family settings may be privileged if done in good faith and relevant to a duty or interest. But excessive publication, gratuitous insults, or statements unrelated to the duty can forfeit privilege.

XI. Practical Guidance

For potential complainants:

Document immediately: Write down the exact words, date, time, place, and who heard them.
Identify witnesses and obtain affidavits.
Act within six months to avoid prescription.
If the matter implicates public interest, evaluate whether civil remedies (damages) or workplace remedies (administrative action) may be more proportionate.

For potential respondents:

Assess if the statement falls under a privileged communication.
Gather proof of truth, good faith, proper purpose, and context (e.g., report to a superior, grievance, or commentary on official acts).
Consider early apology/retraction to mitigate liability.

For both sides:

Explore mediation or settlement (especially for simple slander), mindful that while desistance can influence prosecutorial discretion, criminal liability is not automatically extinguished by private compromise.

XII. Key Takeaways

Oral defamation requires imputation, publication, identifiability, and malice (presumed unless privileged).
Grave vs. simple depends on the seriousness and context of the words and their public impact.
Penalties range from arresto menor to prisión correccional (minimum), with updated fines; mitigating and aggravating circumstances matter.
Defenses include privilege, truth with good motives and justifiable ends, lack of publication/identifiability, and absence of malice (in qualified privilege).
Act quickly—oral defamation generally prescribes in six months.
Constitutional protections are strongest for good-faith, fair comment on matters of public concern, particularly about public officials.

This article provides a structured overview for educational purposes and is not legal advice. For specific situations, consult a Philippine lawyer to evaluate facts, evidence, and the most suitable course of action.