Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, defamation is a criminal offense that protects an individual's honor, reputation, and dignity from unwarranted attacks. The Revised Penal Code (RPC), enacted as Act No. 3815 in 1930 and amended over the years, serves as the primary statute governing crimes against honor. Defamation can take various forms, including libel (written or published) and slander (oral). Oral defamation, commonly referred to as slander, involves spoken words that impute a defect, vice, or condition to another person, real or imaginary, which tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.

This article comprehensively examines the penalties for oral defamation and slander under the RPC, including definitions, elements, classifications, penalties, aggravating circumstances, defenses, and related provisions. It focuses exclusively on the Philippine context, drawing from the RPC's framework for crimes against honor (Title Thirteen, Chapter One).

Legal Basis and Definitions

The RPC addresses defamation in Articles 353 to 362, under Title Thirteen (Crimes Against Honor). Specifically:

Article 353 defines libel as "a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead." While this article primarily pertains to libel, it provides the foundational definition of defamation, which extends to oral forms.
Article 358 specifically governs slander or oral defamation: "Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Two hundred pesos (P200)."

Slander, therefore, is the oral equivalent of libel. It occurs when defamatory statements are uttered verbally, as opposed to being written, printed, or broadcasted. The law distinguishes between "serious" and "simple" (or slight) oral defamation based on the gravity of the imputation and the circumstances surrounding it.

Additionally, Article 359 covers slander by deed, which involves acts (not words) that cast dishonor, such as slapping someone in public without causing physical injury. While not strictly oral, it is related to slander and shares similar penalty structures: arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine from P200 to P1,000 for serious acts, and arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 for less serious acts.

Elements of Oral Defamation and Slander

To establish the crime of oral defamation or slander under Article 358, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:

Imputation of a Defamatory Fact: The accused must have made a statement attributing a crime, vice, defect, or any discreditable act or condition to the offended party. This can be real or imaginary but must be capable of causing harm to reputation.
Publicity: The statement must be communicated to a third person or persons. Unlike libel, which requires broader publication, slander requires that the words be heard by at least one other individual besides the speaker and the offended party. Private conversations overheard unintentionally may still qualify if they result in harm.
Malice: The imputation must be made with malice, either actual (intent to harm) or presumed (malice in law). Malice is presumed if the statement is defamatory unless proven otherwise (e.g., through privileged communication). Under Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if true, unless it is a fair comment on public matters or falls under exceptions.
Identification of the Offended Party: The statement must refer to an identifiable person, whether directly named or implied through context.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has clarified in cases like People v. Aquino (G.R. No. 123032, 1997) that the essence of slander is the harm to reputation, and the determination of whether it is "serious" depends on factors such as the social standing of the parties, the nature of the words, and the context (e.g., uttered in anger or in a public setting).

Classification: Serious vs. Simple Oral Defamation

The RPC classifies oral defamation based on severity, which directly impacts the penalty:

Serious Oral Defamation: This applies when the words are gravely insulting, such as accusing someone of a serious crime (e.g., theft, adultery) without basis, or using highly derogatory language that deeply affects honor. Examples include calling someone a "thief" in a public gathering or imputing immorality in a manner that causes significant social stigma. The Supreme Court in De Jesus v. People (G.R. No. 147295, 2004) emphasized that the gravity is assessed based on the expressions used, the personal circumstances of the offender and offended, and the surrounding facts.
Simple (Slight) Oral Defamation: This covers less severe insults, such as minor name-calling or utterances made in the heat of anger without lasting impact. Examples might include casual derogatory remarks like "fool" or "liar" in a private argument, where no serious harm to reputation occurs.

The distinction is crucial, as it determines the applicable penalty range. Courts have discretion in classification, guided by jurisprudence.

Penalties Imposed

Penalties under the RPC are based on the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended), which allows for minimum and maximum terms. The specific penalties for oral defamation and slander are as follows:

For Serious Oral Defamation (Article 358):
- Imprisonment: Arresto mayor in its maximum period (4 months and 1 day to 6 months) to prision correccional in its minimum period (6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months).
- No fine is specified exclusively, but courts may impose accessory penalties.
For Simple Oral Defamation (Article 358):
- Imprisonment: Arresto menor (1 day to 30 days).
- Or a fine not exceeding P200.
- The court may impose either or both, depending on circumstances.
For Slander by Deed (Article 359, related provision):
- Serious: Arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum (as above) or fine from P200 to P1,000.
- Simple: Arresto menor or fine not exceeding P200.

Note that penalties under the RPC are in old peso amounts (e.g., P200), but Republic Act No. 10951 (2017) adjusted fines for certain crimes to account for inflation. However, for slander, the fines remain nominal as per the original text, though courts may consider adjustments in practice. Imprisonment terms are not affected by RA 10951 for these offenses.

Under Article 355 (applicable by analogy to slander), penalties may include both imprisonment and fine, and in cases of recidivism or aggravating circumstances, the penalty can be increased by one degree.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

Penalties can be modified based on general provisions in the RPC:

Aggravating Circumstances (Article 14): If the slander is committed with treachery, in a place of worship, or against a public official in the performance of duties, the penalty may be raised to the next higher degree (e.g., from arresto mayor to prision correccional).
Mitigating Circumstances (Article 13): If the act was done in the heat of anger (privileged mitigating) or with voluntary surrender, the penalty may be lowered. Article 360 allows for proof of truth as a defense in certain cases, which can mitigate or absolve.
Qualified Defamation: If the slander is made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, it may be treated as libelous in gravity, though oral form keeps it under Article 358.

Defenses and Exceptions

Defenses against charges of oral defamation include:

Absolute Privilege (Article 354): Statements made in official proceedings, such as legislative debates or judicial testimonies, are not actionable.
Qualified Privilege: Fair comments on public figures or matters of public interest, without malice.
Proof of Truth (Article 361): Truth is a defense if the imputation is of a crime or relates to public duties, and it was made in good faith.
Lack of Malice or Publicity: If the statement was private or not malicious, no crime exists.
Prescription: Under Article 90, slander prescribes in 6 months from the date of commission.

The Supreme Court in Brillante v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118757, 2004) has ruled that utterances in the context of labor disputes or political campaigns may be privileged if not malicious.

Related Provisions and Jurisprudence

Article 360: Specifies that complaints for defamation must be filed by the offended party (private crime), and venue is where the offended party resides or where the act occurred.
Article 362: Libel by means of writings or similar means, but oral forms are excluded.

Jurisprudence has evolved the application:

In Villanueva v. People (G.R. No. 160351, 2006), the Court held that calling someone a "land grabber" in a public meeting constituted serious slander.
Cyber-related defamation (RA 10175) does not directly apply to purely oral slander, but if recorded and posted online, it may shift to cyberlibel.

Civil liability under Article 100 of the RPC and the Civil Code (Articles 26, 32, 33) allows for damages concurrently with criminal penalties, including moral damages for harm to reputation.

Conclusion

The penalties for oral defamation and slander under the RPC strike a balance between protecting personal honor and allowing freedom of expression. While fines and short imprisonment terms reflect the non-violent nature of the offense, the classification into serious and simple forms ensures proportionality. Courts play a pivotal role in interpreting gravity, guided by context and jurisprudence. Understanding these provisions is essential for navigating interpersonal conflicts within the bounds of Philippine law.