Penalties for Slander Under Philippine Law

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, slander is a form of defamation that specifically pertains to oral statements. It is governed primarily by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), enacted in 1930 as Act No. 3815, which remains the foundational statute for crimes against honor. Slander, or oral defamation, is criminalized to protect an individual's reputation from unwarranted attacks that could cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. Unlike libel, which involves written or published defamatory statements, slander involves spoken words or gestures. The penalties for slander reflect the gravity of the offense, with distinctions based on the seriousness of the imputation and the circumstances surrounding the act.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of slander under Philippine law, including its definition, elements, classifications, penalties, defenses, procedural aspects, and relevant jurisprudence. It emphasizes the Philippine context, where cultural values such as "hiya" (shame) and familial honor amplify the societal impact of defamatory acts.

Definition and Legal Basis

Slander is defined under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code as "oral defamation" that does not constitute grave slander. The RPC distinguishes between libel (Article 353) and slander, with the latter focusing on verbal expressions. Article 353 defines defamation generally as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt to a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Slander occurs when such an imputation is made orally, through speech, gestures, or other non-written means. For instance, uttering false accusations in a public gathering or during a private conversation that becomes known to others can qualify as slander. The law does not require the statement to be false in an absolute sense but focuses on its malicious nature and potential harm.

In modern contexts, the line between slander and libel can blur, especially with audio recordings or online voice messages. However, if the defamatory statement is captured in a permanent form (e.g., a recorded video posted online), it may be prosecuted as libel or even cyberlibel under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which increases penalties for online defamation.

Elements of Slander

To establish slander, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

Imputation of a Crime, Vice, or Defect: The statement must attribute to the complainant a criminal act, moral failing, or other discreditable quality. This could include accusing someone of theft, immorality, or incompetence in their profession.
Publicity: The imputation must be made known to a third person. Unlike some jurisdictions where private slander is actionable in civil courts, Philippine criminal law requires publicity for the act to be punishable. A statement made solely to the complainant does not constitute slander.
Malice: There must be intent to injure the reputation. Malice is presumed in defamatory statements unless proven otherwise (e.g., through privileged communication). Actual malice involves knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Identification of the Victim: The complainant must be identifiable as the target of the defamation, either directly or by implication.

These elements are derived from Article 353 and interpreted through Supreme Court decisions, ensuring that freedom of speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is balanced against the right to reputation.

Classifications of Slander

The RPC classifies oral defamation into two categories based on severity, which directly influences the penalties:

Grave Slander (Serious Oral Defamation): This applies when the defamation is of a serious and insulting nature. Examples include accusations of serious crimes like murder or adultery, or statements that severely damage one's professional standing. The assessment of gravity considers the social standing of the parties, the context, and the degree of publicity.
Simple Slander (Light Oral Defamation): This covers less severe imputations, such as minor insults or jesting remarks that still cause dishonor but are not deemed grave. For instance, calling someone "lazy" in a casual setting might fall here if it meets the elements.

The distinction is factual and determined by the court on a case-by-case basis, often guided by the offender's intent and the statement's impact.

Penalties for Slander

Penalties under the RPC are imprisonment-based, with fines as alternatives in some cases. They have not been substantially amended for defamation crimes, unlike property offenses under Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which adjusted fines for inflation. Thus, the original penalties remain, though their real value has diminished over time.

For Grave Slander: The penalty is prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which translates to imprisonment from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. No fine is specified as an alternative, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense.
For Simple Slander: The penalty is arresto menor (imprisonment from 1 day to 30 days) or a fine not exceeding P200 (approximately USD 3.50 in current terms, though enforced as stated).

If the slander is committed with aggravating circumstances (e.g., by a public official or with treachery), penalties may increase by one degree under Article 248 of the RPC. Mitigating circumstances, such as voluntary surrender, can reduce them.

In addition to criminal penalties, victims may seek civil damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code, which allows independent civil actions for defamation. Damages can include moral (for mental anguish), exemplary (to deter similar acts), and actual (for proven losses like lost income). Courts have awarded varying amounts, from P10,000 to millions, depending on the case.

Under Republic Act No. 8369 (Family Courts Act), if slander involves family members, it may be handled in family courts with potentially lighter penalties or alternative resolutions like mediation.

Defenses Against Slander Charges

Several defenses can absolve or mitigate liability:

Truth as a Defense: Under Article 354, truth is a complete defense if the imputation is of a crime or pertains to a public official's duties. However, for private matters, truth alone is insufficient without good motives and justifiable ends.
Privileged Communication: Article 354 recognizes absolute privilege (e.g., statements in legislative proceedings) and qualified privilege (e.g., fair reporting of public events). Malice negates qualified privilege.
Opinion vs. Fact: Statements of opinion, if not presented as fact, may not be defamatory, as protected by free speech.
Lack of Malice or Publicity: Proving absence of intent or that the statement was private can lead to acquittal.
Prescription: Slander prescribes after 6 months from the act (Article 90, RPC), barring late filings.

Defendants may also invoke the doctrine of "fair comment" on matters of public interest, as upheld in jurisprudence.

Procedural Aspects

Slander cases are initiated by a complaint from the offended party (private crime under Article 360, RPC), filed with the Municipal Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court for simple cases, or Regional Trial Court for grave ones. The prosecutor investigates, and trials follow standard criminal procedure.

Appeals go to higher courts, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter. Bail is available, given the non-capital nature of the offense.

In the digital age, if slander is amplified online (e.g., via live streams), it may intersect with RA 10175, escalating penalties to one degree higher than RPC provisions.

Jurisprudence and Notable Cases

Philippine courts have shaped slander law through key decisions:

People v. Aquino (1952): Clarified that gestures can constitute slander if they convey defamatory meaning.
Borjal v. Court of Appeals (1999): Emphasized the balance between free press and reputation, extending to oral statements in media.
Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014): While focused on cyberlibel, it influenced interpretations of online oral defamation.
Recent Cases: In 2020s rulings, courts have considered social media voice notes as potential slander, applying RPC penalties unless qualifying as cybercrime.

Jurisprudence underscores that penalties serve deterrence, not vengeance, and courts often encourage settlements to preserve relationships.

Societal and Policy Considerations

In the Philippines, slander laws reflect colonial Spanish influences via the RPC, adapted to Filipino values. Critics argue the low fines render penalties ineffective, prompting calls for reform. The Human Rights Committee has urged decriminalization of defamation to align with international standards like the ICCPR, but no changes have occurred.

Victims, especially women and marginalized groups, often use slander laws against harassment, as seen in #MeToo-inspired cases. However, abuse of these laws for silencing critics (e.g., SLAPP suits) is a concern.

Conclusion

Slander under Philippine law safeguards personal honor through defined penalties that vary by severity, ensuring accountability for harmful speech. While the RPC provides the core framework, evolving contexts like digital communication necessitate adaptive interpretations. Individuals facing charges or victimization should consult legal counsel to navigate this area, balancing rights and responsibilities in a society where reputation holds profound weight.