Oral Defamation (Slander) Arising from False Accusations in the Philippines
A comprehensive doctrinal and procedural guide
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for guidance on a specific case.
1. Concept of Oral Defamation
Philippine criminal law subsumes spoken defamatory statements under “Oral Defamation” or “Slander.” It is committed when a person orally imputes to another any act, omission, status, condition, vice, or defect—real or imaginary—which:
- Tends to dishonor, discredit, or contemptuously ridicule the offended party; and
- Is made publicly, that is, within hearing of at least one third person.
False accusations of crime (“ siya ang magnanakaw ”) are classic examples.
2. Governing Statutes
| Source | Key Provisions |
|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 358 | Defines oral defamation and classifies it into serious and simple. |
| RPC Art. 360 (as repeatedly amended: R.A. 4363, R.A. 10951, R.A. 11231) | Venue, who may file, prescription, and procedure. |
| RPC Art. 354 | Presumption of malice; qualified and absolute privileged communications. |
| RPC Arts. 361–362 | Truth as a defense; publication without participation. |
| Civil Code Art. 33 & 26 | Independent civil action for damages; right to dignity and privacy. |
| Katarungang Pambarangay Law (R.A. 7160, §§399-422) | Barangay conciliation requirement for most simple slander cases. |
3. Elements to Prove
- Statement was uttered orally.
- It was defamatory per se or by context.
- It referred to the offended party, expressly or by clear implication.
- Publication—at least one third person heard it.
- Malice, presumed by law unless within a privileged occasion or rebutted by proof of good motives and justifiable ends.
4. Classification & Penalties
| Type | Indicators | Penalty (after R.A. 10951, effective 2017) |
|---|---|---|
| Serious Oral Defamation | Accusation of a crime, virulent insults, or words intrinsically damaging to reputation (e.g., imputing adultery or corruption). | Prisión correccional min. (6 mo. 1 day) to prisión correccional med. (4 yrs. 2 mos.). The court may also impose a fine up to ₱200,000. |
| Simple Oral Defamation | Less aggravated, context-specific slurs. | Arresto menor or arresto mayor (1 day–6 mos.) and/or fine up to ₱20,000. |
Mitigating/Aggravating: Provocation, passion, social rank, public official victim, etc., modify the range (RPC Arts. 64-65).
5. Venue, Jurisdiction, and Prescription
Venue: Under Art. 360, the criminal complaint may be filed (a) where the defamatory words were uttered, or (b) where the offended party resided at the time.
Jurisdiction:
- Serious slander ⇒ Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- Simple slander ⇒ Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC/MeTC).
Prescription: One (1) year from the date of utterance (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code).
6. Who May File & How
| Step | Requirements & Notes |
|---|---|
| 1. Sworn written complaint | Must be personally signed by the offended party (or legal guardian/representative) and filed with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor. |
| 2. Barangay conciliation | Mandatory for simple slander if both parties are barangay residents of the same city/municipality and no public officer is involved; serious slander is exempt. |
| 3. Prosecutorial action | If probable cause is found, an Information is filed in court. |
| 4. Arraignment & trial | Accused enters plea; pre-trial; presentation of evidence; judgment. |
| 5. Civil action | May be (a) separately filed under Art. 33 or (b) impliedly instituted with the criminal case unless waived or reserved. |
7. Defenses
| Defense | Legal Basis & Scope |
|---|---|
| Absolute privilege | Statements in congressional debates, pleadings, or during testimony in judicial proceedings, provided they are relevant. |
| Qualified privilege | Fair and true report of official acts or proceedings; fair comment on matters of public interest; performance of legal, moral, or social duty. Malice must be proved. |
| Truth plus good motives | Art. 361: Proof that the accused spoke the truth and for a justifiable end. (Truth alone is insufficient.) |
| Lack of malice / honest belief | Rebutting the legal presumption by showing absence of intent to spite or injure. |
| No publication / identity not established | If no third person heard, or the victim cannot be reasonably identified. |
| Prescription, bar by double jeopardy, compromise | Technical defenses. |
8. Civil Damages
Under Art. 33 (Civil Code) the offended party may claim:
- Actual damages (medical bills, lost income, if proven).
- Moral damages (for wounded feelings, mental anguish).
- Nominal damages (to vindicate a violated right).
- Exemplary damages (to deter egregious conduct).
- Attorney’s fees & costs when award is justified.
Burden: Preponderance of evidence (lower than in the criminal case).
9. Selected Jurisprudence
| Case | G.R. No. | Ruling / Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Velarde | L-18926, Feb 27 1965 | “Magnanakaw ka!” uttered in public market = serious slander. |
| People v. Sazon | 17929, Sept 6 1966 | Provoked slander may be mitigated but still punishable. |
| Malayan v. People | 22665, Dec 14 2011 | Distinguishes slander and slander by deed; presence of insult essential. |
| Fermin v. People | 157643, Mar 28 2008 | Media talk-show statements can be oral defamation even if opinionated. |
| Borjal v. CA (libel) | 126466, Jan 14 1999 | Doctrine of “fair comment” applies analogously to oral defamation. |
| Jimenez v. Metrobank | 153308, Jan 23 2013 | Corporate officers may sue personally for slanderous allegations. |
10. False Accusations vs. Related Offenses
| Offense | Article | Distinction from Oral Defamation |
|---|---|---|
| Libel (Written Defamation) | Art. 355 | Requires written/printed medium; higher penalties; cyber-libel under R.A. 10175. |
| Incriminating an Innocent Person | Art. 363 | Offender “directs or causes” false evidence to be presented, not merely utters words. |
| Perjury | Art. 183 | False statement made under oath in a judicial/official proceeding. |
| Unjust Vexation | Art. 287 | Vexatious acts without element of defamation. |
11. Cyber and Hybrid Scenarios
Uttering false accusations in a livestream or video conference still counts as oral defamation because the medium is contemporaneous and spoken. The Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) does not create “cyber-slander”; hence jurisdiction, penalty, and prescription remain those of Art. 358, although digital recordings may serve as evidence.
12. Practical Litigation Notes
- Pre-filing demand or apology is not a prerequisite but can mitigate damages.
- Compromise & Desistance: Defamation is public. Withdrawal by the complainant does not automatically extinguish criminal liability but may persuade prosecutors or justify dismissal on equity.
- Probation eligibility: Penalties not exceeding six years are generally probational; courts often grant probation for first-time simple slander offenders.
- Plea bargaining: Accused may plead guilty to simple instead of serious slander with the prosecutor’s and offended party’s consent.
- Reputation evidence: Both sides may present character witnesses; however, truth as a defense requires proof of the specific imputed crime, not merely bad reputation.
13. Compliance with Barangay Justice (Lupong Tagapamayapa)
If the case falls under simple slander and the parties reside in the same locality, failure to undergo barangay mediation is a jurisdictional flaw—the court must dismiss the Information (Save for exceptions: serious slander, parties in different cities, public officer victim in official line of duty, etc.).
14. Recent Developments & Trends
- R.A. 11594 (2021) introducing gender-based online harassment targets catcalling and misogynistic speech; some prosecutions overlap with oral defamation.
- E-court and videoconference trials (A.M. No. 20-12-01-SC) now standard, accelerating resolution of slander cases.
- Adjustment of fines under R.A. 10951 (2017) significantly increased maximum monetary penalties for defamation.
- Continuing debate on decriminalization: Multiple bills (e.g., H.B. No. 300, 20th Congress) seek to remove imprisonment for libel and slander, but as of May 2025 they remain crimes.
15. Checklist for Practitioners
| Complainant’s Counsel | Defense Counsel |
|---|---|
| Draft verified complaint-affidavit. | Evaluate if words are per se defamatory. |
| Attach witnesses’ sworn statements. | Explore privileged occasion & truth. |
| Verify barangay venue requirement. | Consider plea to simple slander & probation. |
| Compute filing within 1-year period. | File motion to quash for venue/prescription defects. |
| Prepare for damages evidence. | Gather evidence of provocation or good motives. |
16. Conclusion
Oral defamation lawsuits in the Philippines continue to balance free expression and protection of personal honor. While imprisonment remains a statutory penalty, courts increasingly impose fines or grant probation, especially in simple slander. Nonetheless, a false spoken accusation of wrongdoing—whether blurted out in a sari-sari store, a boardroom, or a livestream—can expose the speaker to both criminal liability and substantial civil damages. Mastery of the elements, defenses, procedure, and recent jurisprudence is therefore indispensable for anyone litigating or advising on this enduring tort-crime hybrid.