Penalties for Slander Under Philippine Law

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, slander represents a form of defamation that involves oral statements intended to injure a person's reputation. Rooted in the country's civil law tradition influenced by Spanish colonial codes, slander is criminalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which remains the primary statute governing such offenses. This article provides a comprehensive examination of slander, including its definition, elements, penalties, defenses, procedural aspects, and related legal developments. While slander is distinct from libel (which pertains to written or published defamation), both fall under the broader category of defamation crimes. The discussion is confined to the Philippine context, drawing from statutory provisions, jurisprudence, and doctrinal principles.

Legal Definition and Classification

Slander is defined under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as amended). It refers to oral defamation, which consists of speaking base and defamatory words that tend to prejudice a person in their reputation, honor, or credit. The RPC distinguishes between two main types of slander:

Simple Slander: This involves oral statements that are defamatory but not of a grave nature. Examples include casual insults or derogatory remarks made in the heat of an argument that do not impute a serious crime or moral turpitude.
Grave Slander: This is a more serious form where the oral defamation imputes to the offended party a crime, vice, or defect that is grave, such as accusing someone of theft, adultery, or incompetence in their profession in a manner that causes significant harm.

Additionally, Article 359 addresses Slander by Deed, which involves performing an act (not words) that casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. This could include physical gestures like slapping someone in public to humiliate them or exposing them to ridicule without verbal communication.

Defamation, including slander, is anchored in Article 353 of the RPC, which defines it as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect—real or imaginary—that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt. For slander, the imputation must be oral and made to a third person.

Elements of Slander

To establish slander as a criminal offense, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

Imputation of a Crime, Vice, or Defect: The accused must have attributed to the victim a fact that, if true, would constitute a crime (e.g., "You are a thief") or a vice/defect (e.g., "You are a liar" in a context that harms reputation).
Publicity: The defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one third person other than the victim. Private conversations between the accused and the victim alone do not constitute slander, as there is no publicity.
Malice: This is a key element. Malice can be actual (intent to harm) or presumed (malice in law, where the statement is defamatory on its face without justifiable motive). However, malice is not presumed if the statement falls under privileged communication.
Tendency to Injure Reputation: The words must be calculated to cause dishonor or expose the victim to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.

In jurisprudence, such as in the case of People v. Aquino (G.R. No. L-23908, 1966), the Supreme Court emphasized that the gravity of the slander depends on the social standing of the victim, the circumstances of the utterance, and the extent of the harm caused.

Penalties Imposed

The penalties for slander are outlined in the RPC and are relatively light compared to other crimes, reflecting the balance between freedom of expression and protection of honor. Penalties vary based on the gravity of the offense:

Simple Slander (Article 358): Punishable by arresto menor (imprisonment from 1 day to 30 days) or a fine not exceeding P200 (adjusted for inflation in practice, but statutorily as per the original code). In modern applications, courts often impose fines ranging from P200 to P5,000, considering economic changes, though the RPC has not been formally amended for amounts.
Grave Slander (Article 358): If the defamation is serious, the penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period (imprisonment from 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months) or a fine ranging from P200 to P2,000. Again, fines may be adjusted judicially.
Slander by Deed (Article 359):
- If serious in nature, punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) or a fine from P200 to P1,000.
- If not serious, arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) or a fine not exceeding P200.

These penalties are subject to aggravating or mitigating circumstances under Articles 14 and 15 of the RPC. For instance, if the slander is committed with treachery or in contempt of public authority, the penalty may be increased. Conversely, voluntary surrender or lack of intent to harm may mitigate it.

In addition to criminal penalties, the offended party 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). Courts have awarded varying amounts, such as in Disini v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 169823-24, 2013), where moral damages for defamation reached millions of pesos.

Defenses and Privileges

Several defenses are available to accused individuals:

Truth as a Defense: Under Article 354, truth is a complete defense only if the imputation concerns a public official's performance of duties or if made with good motives and justifiable ends. For private individuals, truth alone is insufficient unless accompanied by good faith.
Privileged Communication: Article 354 provides for absolute and qualified privileges:
- Absolute Privilege: Applies to statements made in official proceedings, such as legislative debates or judicial testimonies, where no liability attaches even if malicious.
- Qualified Privilege: Covers fair comments on public matters, reports of official acts, or communications made in good faith to protect one's interests (e.g., warning an employer about an employee's dishonesty).
Lack of Malice or Publicity: If the statement was not malicious or not heard by third parties, the charge fails.
Prescription: Slander prescribes after 6 months from the date of the offense (Article 90, RPC), providing a time-bar defense.

Notable cases include Borjal v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466, 1999), where the Supreme Court ruled that journalistic privilege protects fair reporting, and Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle (G.R. No. 184315, 2009), emphasizing the need for actual malice in public figure cases, influenced by U.S. doctrines like New York Times v. Sullivan.

Procedural Aspects

Slander cases are initiated by a complaint from the offended party, as they are private crimes under Article 360 of the RPC. The complaint must be filed with the city or provincial prosecutor, who conducts a preliminary investigation. Jurisdiction lies with the Municipal Trial Court (for penalties not exceeding 6 years) or Regional Trial Court (for higher penalties).

The offended party must personally swear to the complaint, and reconciliation efforts are encouraged under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act) or barangay conciliation for minor cases. Appeals follow standard criminal procedure rules.

Related Laws and Developments

While the RPC is foundational, other laws intersect with slander:

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175): Introduces cyberlibel (Section 4(c)(4)), which covers online defamation. Oral slander transmitted digitally (e.g., via voice calls or videos) may fall under this if it meets cyber elements, with penalties one degree higher than traditional defamation.
Anti-Bullying Laws: Republic Act No. 10627 addresses slander in educational settings, imposing administrative penalties.
Human Rights Considerations: The Philippines' adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has led to calls for decriminalizing defamation, as seen in UN Human Rights Committee recommendations. However, slander remains criminal.
Jurisprudential Evolution: Post-Martial Law cases have increasingly balanced defamation laws with freedom of speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution. In Chavez v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338, 2008), the Court underscored that prior restraint on speech is unconstitutional, indirectly affecting slander prosecutions.

Recent trends show a decline in pure slander cases due to the rise of digital communication, shifting focus to cyberlibel. Nonetheless, workplace or community disputes still generate slander complaints.

Conclusion

Slander under Philippine law serves as a mechanism to protect individual honor while navigating the tensions with free expression. Penalties, though modest, underscore the societal value placed on reputation. Victims are encouraged to pursue remedies promptly, while accused parties benefit from robust defenses emphasizing truth and privilege. As societal norms evolve, particularly with digital media, the legal framework may see further reforms to align with international standards. Legal consultation is advisable for specific cases, as outcomes depend on factual nuances and judicial discretion.