Oral Defamation (Slander) in Philippine Law
Focus: Prescription (statute of limitations) of the criminal action
1. Statutory Setting
| Key Provision | What it Covers | Relevance to Prescription |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 358, Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Defines serious and slight oral defamation and their penalties (arresto menor to prisión correccional, plus fine as amended by R.A. 10951). | Determines the range of penalties, which in turn affects prescription and jurisdiction. |
| Art. 360, RPC (as repeatedly amended) | Designates who may file the complaint, venue, and the role of the prosecutor. | Clarifies that oral defamation is a private offense that begins with the sworn complaint of the offended party; this step is critical to toll prescription. |
| Art. 90, RPC | Lists prescriptive periods for crimes. It provides a special one-year period for “libel and other similar offenses.” | This clause is universally applied to slander (oral defamation) by both doctrine and jurisprudence. |
| Art. 91, RPC | Explains when the prescriptive period starts, what interrupts it, and when it resumes. | Governs computation issues such as barangay conciliation, prosecutor filings, dismissals, and the offender’s absence from the Philippines. |
| Art. 92, RPC | Prescription of penalties after final judgment (not of the crime itself). | Distinguish the “prescription of the crime” (Art. 90/91) from “prescription of the penalty” (Art. 92). |
Bottom-line rule: The criminal action for oral defamation must be commenced within one (1) year from the date the words were uttered or from the date the offended party or the authorities learned of it, whichever comes later, subject to the interruptions discussed below.
2. Why One Year? -— The “Libel-and-Similar-Offenses” Clause
Although Art. 90 otherwise allots:
- 10 years for crimes punished by correctional penalties (e.g., prisión correccional), and
- 5 years for those punished by arresto mayor,
the Code carves out a distinct, shorter deadline for libel and “similar offenses.” The Supreme Court has, without exception, treated slander and slander by deed as “similar offenses,” reasoning that all three are found in Title 13, Chapter 1 of the RPC (Crimes Against Honor).
Illustrative cases: People v. Flores (96 Phil. 134, 1954); People v. Doroja (G.R. 117586, June 21 1999); Benito v. People (G.R. 169504, Sept 7 2011). Each reiterates the one-year bar.
3. When Does the Clock Start? — Art. 91 in Action
Date of Commission vs. Date of Discovery
- If the slanderous words were uttered publicly and the offended party was present, the clock ordinarily starts the same day.
- If spoken behind the victim’s back, prescription begins only when the offended party (or competent authorities) first learns of it.
Effect of Accused’s Absence from the Philippines
- Absence suspends the running of prescription. The day the accused departs stops the count; it resumes on the day of actual return.
4. What Interrupts Prescription?
| Interrupting Act | Rationale & Notes |
|---|---|
| (a) Filing a verified complaint with the Barangay Lupon (Katarungang Pambarangay) when barangay conciliation is mandatory | Jurisprudence treats the Punong Barangay as a quasi-prosecutor for this purpose (Baldwin v. People, G.R. 190403, Jan 21 2015). The filing halts prescription. |
| (b) Filing of the sworn complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor | Clearly interrupts, because the prosecutor is “a person authorized to conduct preliminary investigation.” |
| (c) Filing of the Information in court | If the prosecutor finds probable cause and files an Information, prescription remains tolled throughout the proceedings. |
| Resumption: If the case is dismissed without conviction or acquittal, Art. 91 orders that the prescriptive period begins to run anew, and any lapse before interruption plus any lapse after dismissal are added against the one-year total. |
5. Examples
Simple scenario
- Utterance: 1 July 2024
- Sworn complaint filed with prosecutor: 15 June 2025 → Too late (11½ months elapsed, leaving only ~15 days; one-year period expired the same month).
With barangay conciliation
- Utterance: 1 March 2025
- Barangay complaint: 20 March 2025 ⇒ tolls prescription (19 days consumed)
- Certificate to file action issued: 20 April 2025
- Information filed in court: 25 May 2025 ⇒ Still timely (only 19 days + 35 days = 54 days of the 365-day limit used).
6. Serious vs. Slight Slander and Jurisdiction
- Serious oral defamation may carry prisión correccional (max: 2 years-4 months, 1 day), but because of the libel-clause the one-year limit still applies.
- Both serious and slight slander are now within the Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts (MMTC/MTC) under R.A. 7691, given that the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed six years.
7. Civil Liability
An offended party may:
Reserve or enforce civil action within the criminal case (Art. 100, RPC; Rule 111, Rules of Court).
File an independent civil action under Art. 33, Civil Code (defamation is expressly covered).
- The independent civil action prescribes in four (4) years (Art. 1146, Civil Code), independent of the one-year criminal prescriptive period.
8. Prescription of the Penalty vs. the Crime
Once the accused is convicted and a judgment becomes final, Art. 92 governs. Because serious slander entails prisión correccional at most, the right of the State to enforce the penalty prescribes in ten (10) years if the convict evades service. This is entirely separate from the one-year limit to file the case.
9. Special Points & Practical Tips
- Utterances over the Internet with voice or live-stream are not “oral” but may fall under cyber-libel (R.A. 10175) if reduced to a recording. If purely live and ephemeral, the traditional rules on oral defamation apply.
- Multiple utterances create distinct offenses; each starts its own prescriptive clock.
- Naming in official pleadings or privileged communications is either absolutely or qualifiedly privileged (Art. 354); if privilege applies, no crime exists and prescription is moot.
- Always mind the 60-day window after failed barangay mediation: many cases are lost because counsel overlook that prescription resumes as soon as a certificate to file is issued.
Conclusion
Under Philippine criminal law, oral defamation must be prosecuted within one year of discovery. The brevity of this period reflects a legislative policy to encourage swifter vindication while balancing free speech. Practitioners and potential complainants must be vigilant: counting starts immediately after the slur is heard or learned, stops only upon a valid filing before the barangay or prosecutor, and silently recommences whenever proceedings stall or end without judgment. Miss the one-year mark—and the door to criminal prosecution closes permanently, though civil remedies may still subsist for four years.