ORAL DEFAMATION (SLANDER) IN THE PHILIPPINES: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE

1 | Concept and Place in Philippine Criminal Law

Defamation is the broader term that comprises libel (written or similarly permanent forms) and slander (spoken words, sounds, or gestures).
Articles 353–360 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as repeatedly amended (most recently by RA 10951 in 2017), remain the core statutory authority.
Although the RPC predates the Constitution, the absolute/qualified-privilege doctrines and the primacy of free speech in Art. III §4 have shaped modern doctrine through Supreme Court jurisprudence.

2 | Legal Basis

Code provision	Subject-matter
Art. 353	Defines “defamation” and presumes malice.
Art. 354	When malice is not presumed (privileged communications).
Art. 358	Slander (oral defamation)—penalties and gradation.
Art. 359	Slander by deed (defamatory acts, not words).
Art. 360	Venue, who may file, procedure before prosecutors and courts.
Art. 90 & 91	Prescription periods and how they are interrupted.
RA 10951	Monetary fine component now “ ₱20,000–₱80,000 ” (simple) or “ ₱80,000–₱400,000 ” (grave).

Note: RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) punishes cyber-libel, but it does not create “cyber-slander.” Nevertheless, a spoken defamatory statement streamed or posted online is usually charged as cyber-libel (written form) rather than oral defamation.

3 | Elements of Oral Defamation

Imputation of a defamatory matter — a statement, remark, exclamation or sound that tends to dishonor, discredit, or put to contempt the offended party.
Publication — the utterance is heard by a person other than the offended party.
Identifiability — the victim need not be named if class or circumstance points unmistakably to him/her.
Malice — presumed under Art. 353; the prosecution need not prove it unless the case falls under Art. 354 (privileged communication).
Jurisdiction & venue — the utterance occurred or was heard within Philippine territory; venue lies where any element occurred or where the offended party resides at time of commission.

4 | Serious vs. Slight (Simple) Slander

Criterion	Grave/Serious	Simple/Slight
Words used	“imbecile judge,” accusations of serious crimes, imputations of unchastity	Mild expletives or slang, quarrelsome language
Context & standing of parties	Occasion (formal, public), status of victim, motive to malign, publicity	Casual private quarrel, heat of passion
Penalty (Art. 358 as amended)	Prisión correccional in its minimum to medium periods (6 months & 1 day – 4 years & 2 months) and/or fine ₱80 k – ₱400 k	Arresto mayor maximum (4–6 months) to prisión correccional minimum (6 mo & 1 day – 2 years), and/or fine ₱20 k – ₱80 k

Slander by deed (Art. 359) carries slightly lighter penalties but is differentiated by the absence of spoken words (e.g., slapping another in public to humiliate him).

5 | Prescription

Art. 90: “libel and other similar offenses” prescribe in one (1) year.
In People v. Yazon (1978) and People v. Santiago (1990), the Court held that oral defamation is a “similar offense”; thus the 1-year rule applies.
The period is interrupted by filing the complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Prosecutor; it begins to run anew if proceedings are unjustifiably dropped (Art. 91).

6 | Procedure for Filing a Complaint

Barangay conciliation under RA 7160, Chap. VII (Katarungang Pambarangay) is mandatory if:
- Parties reside in the same city/municipality, and
- Penalty does not exceed 1 year imprisonment or ₱5,000 fine.
  (Oral defamation usually falls here unless grave.)
Complaint-affidavit: sworn statement narrating facts, identifying witnesses, attaching evidence (audio recordings, CCTV clip, screenshots of livestream, etc.).
Filing venue (Art. 360): Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (or the Office of the Ombudsman for public officers).
Preliminary investigation: respondent files Counter-Affidavit; parties may be subpoenaed for clarificatory hearing.
Resolution & Information: prosecutor either dismisses, files an Information for oral defamation, or downgrades/ upgrades (e.g., to unjust vexation).
Arraignment & Trial in the Municipal/Metropolitan/Regional Trial Court depending on penalty alleged (grave slander = RTC).
Bail is a matter of right (not capital offense).
Civil action for damages is impliedly instituted with the criminal case unless the offended party waives or reserves it.

7 | Evidence and Litigation Strategy

Type of proof	Common examples	Weight/notes
Direct auditory evidence	Live eyewitness testimony	Must show they clearly heard the exact words and that others heard.
Real evidence	Audio/video recording (e.g., Zoom meeting)	Best if authenticated by the person who made it or through digital forensic certification.
Admissions	Respondent’s apology texts, social-media posts repeating the insult	May establish publication & malice.
Circumstantial	Motive (prior quarrel), timing, respondent’s later boasting	Malice may be inferred.

8 | Defenses

Absolute privilege — statements made in legislative debates, pleadings, or judicial proceedings, provided they are relevant (Art. 354 (1)).
Qualified privilege — private communication in performance of legal/moral duty, or fair & true report without comment on official proceedings (Art. 354 (2)).
Truth plus justifiable motive — truth alone is not an automatic defense in oral defamation; one must additionally prove good motives and justifiable ends.
Lack of publication — if only the complainant heard the words, crime is not consummated.
Identification failure — statement too vague to single out complainant.
Prescription — filed beyond one year.
Self-defense in defamation — a proportional defamatory response to a prior libel may mitigate, not exonerate (Binamira v. Abellana, 1957).

9 | Jurisprudential Illustrations

Case	G.R. No.	Holding
People v. Velasco (1973)	L-32839	Calling an NBI agent a “magnanakaw” (thief) in a public market ≠ serious slander absent evidence of motive, deemed slight slander.
People v. Purisima (1978)	L-42050	Accusation of adultery against a married woman in front of townsfolk classified as grave slander.
Carreon v. People (G.R. 217874, Apr 2014)	—	“Ikaw ay magnanangyaw” (slur in Visayan) shouted during fiesta sufficient for conviction; barangay conciliation was jurisdictional and had been complied with.
People v. Goliongco (2014)	G.R. 201130	“Putang-ina mo” uttered once, without further circumstance, merely unjust vexation, not defamatory.
Tulfo v. People (2018)	G.R. 223338	Radio commentator’s on-air insults fall under libel (recorded broadcast).

10 | Penalties in Detail (post-RA 10951)

Classification	Imprisonment	Fine	Ancillary
Slight slander	Arresto mayor max (4 – 6 mo)* → Prisión correccional min (6 mo & 1 d – 2 y)	₱20,000 – ₱80,000	Civil indemnity, moral & exemplary damages; publication of judgment optional.
Grave slander	Prisión correccional min–med (6 mo & 1 d – 4 y & 2 mo)	₱80,000 – ₱400,000	Same. Court may order apology to be published.
Subsidiary imprisonment	Allowed if fine not paid and accused has no property.

*Converted to days/years by Art. 27 RPC: 1 day = 24 hours continuous imprisonment measurement.

11 | Civil Remedies

Independent civil action (Art. 33, Civil Code) for defamation, fraud, or physical injuries may be filed even if the criminal action is not instituted or regardless of its result.
Damages recoverable:
- Moral (mental anguish, wounded feelings).
- Actual (if economic loss is proven, e.g., job termination traceable to defamatory statement).
- Exemplary (to set an example).
- Nominal (if no actual loss proven but rights vindicated).

12 | Intersection with Cyber-Defamation

Scenario	Proper charge
Live FB broadcast where remarks are heard in real time and preserved as video	Cyber-libel (written form kept online).
Zoom meeting with no recording, 15 participants	Oral defamation, arguably multiple counts.
TikTok “live” that vanishes after stream (ephemeral)	Prosecutors differ; if no recording exists, complainant often adopts oral defamation theory.

Higher penalty for cyber-libel: one degree higher than libel under Art. 355, i.e., prisión correccional max to prisión mayor min (up to 8 years & 1 day).
Venue: where any element occurred or where the offended party’s residence is, or where the defamatory content was first accessed by a subscriber (as clarified by Bonifacio v. RTC of Manila, G.R. 184800, Sep 29 2015).

13 | Practical Tips for Complainants

Act quickly – secure certificates of appearance from the Barangay and file within one year.
Capture and preserve evidence – screenshots, timestamps, independent witnesses.
Detail context – show that the insult was not mere expression in the heat of passion.
Address jurisdiction – submit copies of IDs and proof of residence to support venue allegations.
Anticipate defenses – be ready to show how qualified privilege does not apply (e.g., defendant acted with malice or statement unrelated to public interest).
Consider alternative dispute resolution – public apology can be a realistic settlement.

14 | Key Take-Aways

Oral defamation is a public offense, yet access to prosecution is largely complaint-driven and time-bound by a one-year prescriptive period.
The distinction between libel and slander hinges on form, but both share common defenses and policy tensions with free speech.
The Barangay Justice System is not a mere technicality; failure to undergo conciliation (when required) is a jurisdictional defect that can void proceedings.
RA 10951 significantly raised fines; in practice, many judges favor fines over imprisonment for first-time offenders.
In the age of livestreaming, the border between spoken and written defamation is porous; charging theories must squarely fit the facts.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws evolve, and factual nuances matter; consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for guidance on any specific case.