Oral Defamation (“Slander”) and the Threshold for Public Insults in Philippine Law (Updated to R.A. 10951 and jurisprudence up to June 2025)
1. Overview
“Oral defamation” or slander punishes spoken words or sounds that tend to dishonour, discredit, or contemptuously ridicule another.¹ While the term “public insult” is not used in the statute, the threshold question—when does a mere insult become the crime of oral defamation?—has been fleshed out by Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended, Article 354 on malice, and more than a century of Supreme Court rulings.
2. Statutory Foundations
| Provision | Text (abridged) | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 358 RPC | “The penalty of arresto mayor max. to prisión correccional min. or a fine ≤ ₱200,000 shall be imposed if the slander is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise arresto menor or fine ≤ ₱20,000.” | Creates two classes: serious vs slight oral defamation. |
| Art. 354 RPC | “Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious unless it is a privileged communication or the accused proves good motive and justifiable ends.” | Presumption of malice defines the threshold unless rebutted. |
| Art. 359 RPC | Slander by deed (gestures/acts). | Helps distinguish speech‐based vs act‐based insults. |
R.A. 10951 (2017) merely increased the fines; it did not alter the elements or the serious/slight dichotomy.
3. Elements of Oral Defamation
- Defamatory Imputation – words or sounds tending to cause dishonour, contempt, or ridicule.
- Publication – heard by a third person (one witness suffices).
- Identifiability – offended party must be determinable.
- Malice – presumed under Art. 354 unless privileged or otherwise rebutted.
- Lack of Justification – no complete or qualified defence (truth with good motives, self-defence of honour, privileged occasion, etc.).
4. Serious vs. Slight: The “Threshold” Tests
The Code offers no quantitative yardstick; the Supreme Court instead applies contextual factors on a case-by-case basis:
| Factor | Illustrative Rulings (G.R. No.; date) | Effect on Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Language Used | “Putang ina mo, hayop ka!” (People v. Velasco, L-8151, 1956) – serious. | Scurrilous, obscene, grossly insulting words lean toward serious. |
| Social Standing/Role of Offended Party | Epithets hurled at municipal mayor (People v. Raquel, L-16372, 1961) – serious. | Office or reputation magnifies injury. |
| Occasion & Audience | Insults during a town fiesta program (People v. Imutan, L-36987, 1978) – serious. | Wider audience → graver dishonour. |
| Motive & Temper | Words blurted in the heat of anger amid mutual shouting (People v. Ditona, 103 Phil. 261, 1958) – slight. | Heat-of-passion may mitigate gravity. |
| Duration & Repetition | Single spontaneous outburst is often slight; sustained tirade or multiple repetitions may become serious. | |
| Cultural Usage | “Gago” or “baliw” exchanged casually among close friends may be mere banter (see People v. Cruz, L-58744, 1989). | Courts weigh common parlance to see if words are seriously insulting or empty expletives. |
Key Take-away: No single word is automatically criminal. The threshold lies in the totality of circumstances—the words plus context must show a real and palpable intent to besmirch honor.
5. “Public” vs “Private” Insults
- Publication element is satisfied once any third person hears.
- Larger audiences aggravate seriousness but are not indispensable.
- Insults uttered privately (only the offender and victim present) are not slander; they may, however, constitute unjust vexation (Art. 287) or grave threats (Art. 282) if menace accompanies the words.
A true “public insult” (e.g., shouted in a market, livestreamed, or over a PA system) usually tips the scale toward serious slander because the harm to reputation is wider and more lasting.
6. Related Doctrines and Defences
| Category | Rule | Leading Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute Privilege | Statements in legislative, judicial, or official proceedings are immune. | Santos v. Judge Vasco, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1278 (1998). |
| Qualified Privilege | Fair comment on public figures or discharge of legal/moral duty; malice must be proven. | Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 126466 (1999). |
| Truth + Good Motive | True statements are not defamatory if uttered with justifiable ends. | U.S. v. Bustos, 37 Phil. 731 (1918). |
| Self-defence of Honour | Proportionate insults in immediate retaliation may exculpate or mitigate. | People v. Rivera, L-15964 (1960). |
| Provocation or Passion | Can lower penalty from serious to slight (Art. 64 RPC). | People v. Amper, L-34135 (1974). |
7. Penalties (Post-R.A. 10951)
| Classification | Imprisonment | Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Serious Oral Defamation | Arresto mayor max. (4 months 1 day – 6 months) to Prisión correccional min. (6 months 1 day – 2 years 4 months). | ≤ ₱200,000 |
| Slight Oral Defamation | Arresto menor (1 day – 30 days). | ≤ ₱20,000 |
Both are bailable, subject to barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay Law) when parties reside in the same city/municipality and none of the statutory exemptions apply.
8. Procedural & Temporal Considerations
Prescription – 1 year for both serious and slight slander (Art. 90 RPC).
Venue – Where the defamatory words were uttered or where any offended party resides (Rule 110 §15, Rules of Court).
Affidavit of Desistance – Does not automatically extinguish criminal liability once the information is filed; the public prosecutor or court must approve.
Barangay Proceedings – Required except if:
- Offender is a gov’t employee and the offence relates to official duties;
- Parties reside in different cities/municipalities; or
- Seriousness or urgency warrants direct filing (Lao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 119178, 1997).
9. Intersection with Other Laws
| Law | Overlap with Oral Defamation | Distinct Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Cybercrime Act (R.A. 10175) | Extends libel (written) to online publications; does not cover purely oral livestreams unless recorded and reposted. | Higher penalty (one degree higher) for cyber-libel. |
| Safe Spaces Act (R.A. 11313) | “Gender–based online sexual harassment” may coexist with slander if uttered in public places or cyberspace. | Administrative fines + community service; can be filed independently. |
| Anti-Voyeurism Act (R.A. 9995) | If insult includes unlawful recording. | Separate offence. |
| Civil Code Art. 33 | Victim may sue for damages irrespective of criminal outcome. | Proof of malice affects quantum of moral damages. |
10. Evolving Issues (2020-2025)
- Move to Decriminalise Defamation – Multiple bills (e.g., H.B. 2621, S.B. 1593) seek to convert slander and libel into purely civil wrongs; none has passed as of June 2025.
- Social-Media “Spaces” – Courts face novel questions where voice chats (e.g., Spaces, Discord) blur oral and broadcast lines; prevailing view treats real-time audio as oral if not recorded/posted.
- Penal Proportionality – Sentencing courts increasingly favour fines over imprisonment for slight slander, citing People v. Daomilas (G.R. 249277, 2022) and restorative-justice policy.
11. Practical Checklist for Assessing a Public Insult
- Identify words – Are they objectively damaging to honour?
- Context – Where, when, how many heard, relationship of parties.
- Intent/Motive – Spontaneous expletive vs deliberate humiliation.
- Defences – Truth, privileged occasion, self-defence of honour.
- Gravity – Use jurisprudential factors to classify serious vs slight.
- Procedures – Initiate barangay conciliation when required; respect the one-year prescription.
12. Conclusion
The “threshold” that transforms a public insult into punishable oral defamation is qualitative, not quantitative. Philippine courts evaluate the inherent offensiveness of the language and the totality of circumstances—audience size, context, status of the victim, and motive—against the constitutional balance between free expression and the right to honour. Understanding these subtleties is indispensable to lawyers, media practitioners, and ordinary citizens alike.
Endnotes
- Article 358, Revised Penal Code (Act 3815, as amended).
- See also People v. Tolentino, L-55795 (1984); People v. Lacap, L-8009 (1955), among others. This article is for academic discussion and does not constitute legal advice.