Penalty for Oral Defamation (Slander) under the Philippine Revised Penal Code (updated to Republic Act No. 10951 [2017] and current Supreme Court doctrines as of 11 June 2025)
1. Statutory Basis
| Provision | Text (as amended) | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 358, Revised Penal Code (RPC) | “Oral defamation shall be punished: (1) Grave slander – by arresto mayor max. to prisión correccional min. or a fine not exceeding ₱1,000,000; (2) Simple slander – by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱20,000, or both.” — Amounts increased by RA 10951 (19 Aug 2017). |
Distinguishes grave vs simple slander; jail ranges unchanged (3 months +1 day – 6 years) but fines now match modern peso values. |
Note: Slander by deed (Art. 359) and written defamation/“libel” (Arts. 353-357 & 360-362) are separate offenses.
2. Elements of Oral Defamation
- Imputation of an act, crime, vice, defect, or any circumstance tending to dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
- Publication – statement must be uttered in the presence of at least one third person who understands it.
- Identifiability – the person defamed is identifiable, expressly or by context.
- Malice is presumed (Art. 354) unless the statement is privileged or proved true and made with good motives / justifiable ends.
3. Classifying the Offense
| Type | Practical Test (People v. Purisima, 92 Phil. [1952]; People v. Santiago, G.R. L-22339, 30 Jun 1967) |
|---|---|
| Grave slander | Words “intrinsically hateful, vicious, or insulting,” or uttered under circumstances showing more than casual indignation (e.g., public assembly; directed at public officials; or use of grossly obscene epithets). |
| Simple slander | All other defamatory remarks not rising to the level of grave. |
Courts weigh (a) exact words used, (b) social standing of parties, (c) occasion, and (d) attendant passion or provocation.
4. Penalties in Detail
| Offense | Imprisonment | Fine (RA 10951) | Accessory penalties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grave slander | Arresto mayor max. (4 m 1 d – 6 m) to prisión correccional min. (6 m 1 d – 2 y 4 m) | Up to ₱1,000,000 | Suspension of political rights (Arts. 43, 44, 45) while sentence served; civil indemnity under Art. 33, Civil Code. |
| Simple slander | Arresto menor (1 d – 30 d) | Up to ₱20,000 | Same accessory/civil consequences, but no perpetual disqualification because max principal penalty < 6 y. |
Courts may impose both imprisonment and fine, or choose either.
5. Procedural Highlights
| Topic | Rule |
|---|---|
| Nature of crime | Private offense (Rule 110, §5[b]; Art. 360) – prosecution begins only upon a sworn complaint by the offended party or certain relatives. |
| Venue | Where the defamatory words were uttered or where any offended party resides at the time of commission (People v. Siazon, G.R. 211476, 09 Jul 2018). |
| Prescriptive period | 1 year from the date of the utterance or its discovery (Art. 90; Datu Mamasa-o v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 89793, 07 Dec 1993). Filing a complaint before the prosecutor or barangay interrupts prescription (Act 3326). |
| Arrest/Bail | Bailable as a matter of right (Const. Art. III §13); typical bail ₱2,000 – ₱18,000 depending on gravity/local schedule. |
| Plea bargaining | Accused may plead guilty to simple slander when charged with grave, subject to prosecution’s and court’s consent (Rule 116, §2). |
6. Defenses & Excuses
| Defense | Scope | Leading Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Truth + good motives | Complete defense under Art. 361; accused must prove actual truth and justifiable purpose (e.g., expose wrongdoing). | People v. Velasco, 66 Phil. (1938) |
| Privileged communication | Absolute: official proceedings, parliamentary and judicial statements. Qualified: fair comment on public figures, mutual communication of business interest, pleadings, statements of self-defense (People v. Sazon, G.R. L-45485, 04 Oct 1937). |
Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 126466, 14 Jan 1999 (libel, applied by analogy) |
| Lack of malice / absence of publicity | No third person heard or understood the remark; casual expletives lacking intent to discredit (People v. Candelaria, G.R. L-19330, 29 Jan 1965). | |
| Editorial privilege | Radio/TV hosts may invoke fair comment but only for opinion; recitation of false facts is not protected (Tulfo v. People, G.R. 222306-08, 15 Sep 2021). |
7. Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances (Arts. 14-15 RPC)
- Aggravating: in public authority’s presence (§2); with insult/disrespect (§3); at place of worship (§5); by means of ICT amplifying defamation (treated as libel if recorded/uploaded, but circumstance can upgrade to grave slander).
- Mitigating: provocation immediately preceding (Art. 13 [4]); passion/obfuscation (Art. 13 [6]); voluntary surrender.
8. Interaction with Other Laws
| Law | Relevance |
|---|---|
| RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012) | Spoken words streamed live or reposted online may constitute cyber-libel, not oral defamation. Higher penalty: prisión correccional max. to prisión mayor min. |
| RA 9262 (VAWC) | Defamatory verbal abuse within intimate relationships can be prosecuted as psychological violence (max penalty up to prisión mayor), in addition to or in lieu of slander. |
| Anti-Bullying Act 2013 / Safe Spaces Act 2019 | School/workplace slurs may trigger administrative sanctions alongside criminal prosecution. |
9. Sample Penal Computation (Illustrative)
“You’re a corrupt thief!” shouted thrice at a barangay captain during a town fiesta, heard by 30 people. Court usually classifies as grave slander (gross insult to a public official in public gathering).
- Penalty range: Arresto mayor max.–prisión correccional min. → choose 1 year & 1 day – 1 year & 8 months (medium period).
- Fine: discretionary, up to ₱1,000,000; jurisprudence often imposes ₱50k-₱200k plus damages.
“Bobo ka talaga.” muttered in a private canteen, overheard by one co-worker.
- Usually simple slander → Arresto menor; court may impose ₱5,000 fine alone if no prior record.
10. Civil Remedies
Under Art. 33, Civil Code, the aggrieved party may file an independent civil action for damages (moral, exemplary, nominal) separate from the criminal case; proof of malicious utterance suffices. The civil suit does not prescribe with the one-year rule; it follows the four-year period for quasi-delicts (Art. 1146).
11. Contemporary Policy Debates
- Decriminalization vs Reputation Preservation – Bills filed each Congress (e.g., House Bills 1799, 3183 [2024]) seek to replace jail terms with fines/community service to align with UN / ASEAN free-speech norms.
- Inflation Adjustment – RA 10951’s million-peso ceiling aims to deter wealthy offenders who treat minor fines as “cost of speaking.”
- Restorative Justice – Some local prosecutors pilot mediation and public apology agreements (DOJ Cir. 20-2022) to unclog dockets.
12. Takeaways for Practitioners & Laypersons
- Act quickly – one-year prescriptive period is fatal if you miss it.
- Choose the proper forum – barangay conciliation (Lupong Tagapamayapa) is mandatory for most slander cases if parties reside in the same city/municipality (RA 7160, §412).
- Gather witnesses and recordings – malice is presumed, but context affects gravity and damages.
- Invoking defenses early can persuade prosecutors to downgrade to alarm & scandal (Art. 155) or dismiss outright.
- Settlement is common; a sincere public apology plus monetary reparations often ends the dispute without jail time.