1) Concept and Legal Basis

Oral defamation, commonly called slander, is a criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). It is part of the Crimes Against Honor (Title Thirteen), alongside libel (written/recorded/broadcast defamation) and slander by deed (defamation through acts instead of words).

At its core, defamation punishes a public and malicious imputation that tends to dishonor, discredit, or put a person in contempt.

Slander vs. Libel (Why the Label Matters)

Even if the accusation is “spoken,” it is not always “oral defamation” under Article 358. Philippine law distinguishes based on the means:

Oral defamation (Art. 358): defamatory words spoken directly (e.g., face-to-face, in a meeting, shouted on the street, uttered during an argument) and not through the special media listed for libel.
Libel (Arts. 353–355): defamatory imputation done through writing/printing or “similar means,” including radio and other media contemplated by law. Modern practice may also implicate cyber libel when the defamatory content is published through a computer system.

So: a defamatory statement delivered on radio, or posted online (even if it’s audio/video), can fall outside “slander” and be treated as libel/cyber libel, depending on the circumstances.

2) What the Law Punishes: Defamatory Imputation

A statement is potentially defamatory if it imputes any of the following to a person:

a crime (“Magnanakaw yan,” “Estafador,” “Rapist,” “Drug pusher”);
a vice or defect (moral or personal, real or imaginary);
an act/omission/condition/status/circumstance that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt (e.g., accusations of cheating, corruption, immorality, incompetence, serious misconduct).

Defamation is not limited to criminal accusations. Statements attacking character, chastity, honesty, professionalism, or integrity can qualify—if they meet the required elements.

3) Elements of Oral Defamation (Slander)

Courts generally look for these core requisites:

(A) There is a defamatory imputation

The words must tend to injure reputation—to make others think less of the person, avoid them, ridicule them, or mistrust them.

Mere insults or profanity can be tricky: some utterances are treated as simple insult in the heat of anger; others, depending on context and audience, become defamation.
The test is not only the dictionary meaning but also how ordinary hearers would understand the words in context.

(B) It is made orally

The imputation is delivered by spoken words (including shouting, whispering, statements in a meeting, or spoken remarks audible to others).

(C) It is published (communicated to a third person)

Publication does not mean newspapers. In criminal defamation, “publication” generally means: the statement was heard/received by at least one person other than the speaker and the person defamed.

If the words were said only to the offended party with no third person hearing, defamation typically fails for lack of publication (though other offenses or civil remedies may still be argued, depending on the facts).
One third person is enough.

(D) The person defamed is identifiable

The offended party must be identifiable either:

by name, nickname, or direct reference; or
by description/circumstances that listeners reasonably understand to point to a particular person.

A statement aimed at a large, vague group (“lahat kayo magnanakaw”) is harder to prosecute as defamation unless the group is small and identifiable, or the circumstances unmistakably point to a particular member.

(E) There is malice

In Philippine defamation law, malice is generally presumed once a defamatory imputation with publication and identifiability is shown—unless the statement is a privileged communication.

Two ideas matter:

Malice in law: presumed from the defamatory nature (default rule).
Malice in fact: actual ill-will or improper motive that must be proven when privilege applies.

4) “Serious” vs. “Slight” Oral Defamation

Article 358 recognizes two practical categories:

Serious oral defamation (grave/serious and insulting nature)
Slight oral defamation (less serious)

The RPC does not give a mathematical formula. Courts assess the totality of circumstances, often including:

the exact words used (accusing someone of a heinous crime is usually more serious);
the context (public place vs. private setting; formal gathering vs. heated quarrel);
the presence and number of listeners and the likelihood of reputational harm;
the social standing and relationship of parties (e.g., superior-subordinate; public official-private citizen);
whether the utterance was made in anger, with provocation, or during a sudden confrontation;
whether the remark was repeated, emphasized, or accompanied by threats or humiliation;
whether the statement imputes a crime involving moral turpitude or serious dishonesty.

Practical point: Some expressions commonly used in everyday disputes may be treated as slight when clearly uttered as an outburst rather than a calculated reputational attack. But context can elevate them—especially when the speaker imputes a specific crime (e.g., theft, estafa) in front of others.

5) Penalties

A) Serious Oral Defamation

Punished by imprisonment ranging from:

Arresto mayor (maximum period) to prisión correccional (minimum period).

To translate the ranges:

Arresto mayor: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
- maximum period: 4 months and 1 day to 6 months
Prisión correccional: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
- minimum period: 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months

So serious oral defamation generally falls within 4 months and 1 day up to 2 years and 4 months, depending on the court’s determination of the proper period.

B) Slight Oral Defamation

Punished by:

arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) or a fine.

Historically, the RPC states a very low fine cap (reflecting its 1930-era amounts). Over time, Philippine laws have adjusted many fines in the Penal Code. In real practice, always verify the current fine amounts applied by courts for the particular charge, because statutory amendments may update fine ceilings even when the article wording people quote is the old one.

Accessory consequences

A conviction can also carry:

criminal record implications,
potential civil liability for damages,
and other accessory effects depending on the penalty imposed.

6) Criminal vs. Civil Liability

Criminal case (RPC)

Oral defamation is a criminal offense prosecuted in court, where the State seeks conviction and the accused faces penalties.

Civil liability for damages

Defamation can also lead to civil damages (moral damages, exemplary damages, etc.), depending on proof.

A major feature under the Civil Code: defamation is one of the wrongs for which an independent civil action for damages may be filed (separate from the criminal case). This allows a damages suit even if a criminal case is not pursued, subject to rules on evidence and prescription.

7) Procedure and Practical Litigation Points (Philippine Setting)

A) Where cases are usually filed

Oral defamation cases are typically filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC/MTCC/MCTC) because the penalties are within its jurisdictional range.

B) Where venue lies

Generally, venue is where the defamatory words were uttered and heard/published—the place where the third person heard the statement is often central.

C) Prescription (time limits)

Prescription depends on whether it is treated as a light or correctional offense:

Slight oral defamation (light penalty) commonly falls under shorter prescriptive periods.
Serious oral defamation (correctional) has a longer prescriptive period.

Precise computation can be affected by filing dates, interruptions, and procedural steps.

D) Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Some disputes between individuals in the same locality may require barangay conciliation before court filing, but not all criminal cases are covered. The law contains exceptions (including offenses with penalties exceeding certain thresholds). Whether oral defamation must pass through barangay conciliation depends on:

the charge level (slight vs serious),
the penalty range, and
whether the parties reside within the coverage rules.

Because a failure to comply (when required) can have procedural consequences, this becomes a practical threshold issue in some communities.

E) Evidence issues

Oral defamation often rises or falls on:

credible witness testimony (who heard what, where, and in what context),
consistency of accounts,
surrounding circumstances (motive, provocation, audience).

Audio recordings may help but can create separate legal risks if recorded without proper consent in a context treated as a “private communication.” Philippine anti-wiretapping rules can affect admissibility and expose recorders to liability in some situations.

8) Defenses and How They Work

Defenses in oral defamation generally attack one or more required elements (defamatory imputation, publication, identifiability, malice) or rely on privilege and constitutional protections.

Defense 1: No defamatory imputation (or statement is non-defamatory in context)

Words can be interpreted as opinion, hyperbole, figurative speech, or mere name-calling without a reputational imputation.
Context matters: tone, audience understanding, and whether listeners would take the words as a factual assertion.

Defense 2: No publication

If there was no third person who heard/understood the statement, criminal defamation usually fails.

Defense 3: Person not identifiable

If listeners could not reasonably identify who was being referred to, the prosecution may fail.

Defense 4: Privileged communication (absolute or qualified)

This is a major category.

(A) Absolute privileged communications

These are generally not actionable, even if harsh, as long as they meet doctrinal limits:

Statements made in legislative proceedings (e.g., speeches in Congress, within protected legislative functions).
Statements in judicial proceedings (pleadings, testimony, motions, etc.), typically requiring relevance/pertinency to the case.
Certain official communications made by public officers in the performance of functions.

If a statement is absolutely privileged, criminal defamation is typically barred.

(B) Qualified privileged communications

These are protected unless the prosecution proves malice in fact.

Common examples:

Private communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty, addressed to someone with a corresponding interest or duty (e.g., reporting misconduct to a supervisor, making a complaint to authorities in good faith).
Fair and true reports of official proceedings (with doctrinal limits).
Fair comment on matters of public interest (especially when based on facts and made without improper motive).

When qualified privilege applies:

malice is not presumed; the burden shifts to show actual malice (ill will, improper motive, or reckless disregard in appropriate contexts).

Defense 5: Truth (plus good motives and justifiable ends)

Philippine doctrine generally recognizes that truth can be a defense in defamation, but typically not in a vacuum. Courts commonly look for:

the truth of the imputation, and
good motives and justifiable ends (e.g., legitimate purpose, protection of interest, reporting wrongdoing appropriately).

Truth becomes especially important in matters involving public officers and issues of public concern, where speech receives broader protection—though the defense still depends heavily on context, proof, and how the statement was made.

Defense 6: Lack of malice / good faith

Even outside formal privilege categories, good faith arguments may be used to negate malice, for example:

honest mistake without intent to injure,
reliance on apparently credible information,
absence of improper motive.

How far this succeeds depends on whether privilege applies and whether the statement was made in a manner consistent with a bona fide purpose.

Defense 7: Constitutional protections (speech on public issues)

Philippine jurisprudence recognizes heightened protection for:

speech involving public officials, public figures, and matters of public interest.

In these contexts, courts scrutinize:

whether the challenged statement is fact vs opinion/commentary,
whether it was made with the kind of culpability that defeats constitutional protection (often discussed as “actual malice” in free speech contexts),
whether it is grounded on disclosed facts and made in a manner consistent with public discourse.

This is not a blanket license to defame; it is a framework that can materially affect how malice and liability are evaluated.

Defense 8: Retraction, apology, or provocation (mitigation more than a complete defense)

A sincere apology or retraction does not automatically erase criminal liability, but it may influence:
- charging decisions,
- settlement dynamics,
- and (if conviction results) penalty considerations.
Provocation and passion/obfuscation may reduce liability or the severity classification (serious vs slight) depending on how the court assesses the incident.

9) Common Situations and Legal Characterizations

Heated arguments in public places

Often litigated as oral defamation because:

there is typically a third-party audience (publication),
statements are emotionally charged (which may reduce seriousness),
context can swing classification from slight to serious.

Workplace accusations (e.g., “thief,” “fraud,” “corrupt”)

Risk increases when:

said in front of co-workers,
imputes a specific offense,
damages professional reputation.

Privilege defenses may apply if the statement was made as part of a proper complaint channel and limited to those with duty/interest.

Community disputes and barangay settings

Statements aired in barangay mediation or community gatherings can create:

publication issues (many listeners),
privilege arguments (depending on whether made in an official proceeding and the legal characterization of that setting),
practical settlement pathways.

Repeating rumors

Repeating defamatory accusations (“Sabi nila…” / “Narinig ko lang…”) can still incur liability because republishing a defamatory imputation is often treated as a new act of defamation, unless a privilege applies (e.g., fair report of official proceedings).

10) Related Offenses Often Confused with Slander

A) Slander by deed (Art. 359)

Defamation through acts—e.g., humiliating gestures, slapping done primarily to dishonor, or other acts intended to publicly disgrace—distinct from spoken words.

B) Libel (Arts. 353–355) and Cyber Libel

If the defamatory content is transmitted through media forms treated as libelous means—or through a computer system—it may be prosecuted under libel/cyber libel rather than slander.

C) Threats, coercion, unjust vexation, harassment-related laws

Depending on the facts, the same incident may also implicate other offenses. But those are separate theories with separate elements.

11) Key Takeaways (Doctrinal Summary)

Oral defamation is spoken, defamatory, published to a third person, identifying the offended party, and attended by malice (often presumed unless privileged).
The law distinguishes serious from slight oral defamation based on context and gravity, not just vocabulary.
Penalties range from light (arresto menor or fine) to correctional (arresto mayor max to prisión correccional min).
Privilege and good faith are central defenses, especially for complaints to proper authorities and commentary on public issues.
Defamation can produce both criminal exposure and civil damages, including through an independent civil action.