A practitioner-grade guide to criminal and civil liability for defamatory falsehoods (offline and online), the defenses available, procedures, timelines, and practical strategies in the Philippine setting.

I. Core Concepts and Sources of Law

Defamation is the imputation of a discreditable act, condition, status, or vice that tends to dishonor, discredit, or put a person in contempt or ridicule.
The Revised Penal Code (RPC) governs libel (written or similar) and slander (oral), slander by deed (defamatory acts), plus related offenses like incriminating an innocent person and intriguing against honor.
Civil Code remedies coexist with criminal liability (e.g., Articles 19, 20, 21 on abuse of rights and wrongful acts; Article 33 allowing an independent civil action for defamation, fraud, and physical injuries).
Cybercrime Prevention Act applies when defamation is committed through information and communication technologies (ICT) (“cyber libel”) and generally raises the penalty by one degree over the corresponding RPC offense.
Data Privacy Act and special statutes may be relevant when personal data is exposed or misused while defaming a person.

Key point: Philippine law protects reputation while safeguarding free speech; privileged communications and fair comment on matters of public interest are recognized defenses.

II. Offenses That Commonly Arise From “False Accusations”

A. Libel (Article 355 in relation to Art. 353 RPC)

Medium: writing, printing, lithography, painting, theatrical exhibition, radio/TV, films, social media posts, blogs, vlogs, group chats that amount to publication, etc. Elements (shortcut test):

Defamatory imputation;
Malice (presumed by law, subject to exceptions—see §IV);
Publication to at least one third person;
Identifiability of the offended party (by name, photo, initials, innuendo, or context).

Penalty: Prisión correccional (min–med) or fine (updated by statute); for cyber libel, penalty is one degree higher than libel.

B. Slander / Oral Defamation (Article 358 RPC)

Medium: spoken words or sounds (including live streams/voice chats if truly oral). Degrees:

Grave slander (serious insults/accusations) – higher penalty;
Simple slander – lower penalty.

C. Slander by Deed (Article 359 RPC)

Medium: acts (e.g., publicly slapping or spitting on someone) that cast dishonor. Gravity depends on the circumstances, social standing, place, and intent.

D. Related Penal Offenses

Incriminating an innocent person (Art. 363): Performing an act which directly incriminates an innocent person (e.g., planting evidence, fabricating a scenario).
Intriguing against honor (Art. 364): Any intrigue that impairs reputation by fomenting ill will—a catch-all when proof of specific defamation falls short.
Perjury (Art. 183, as amended): Willful falsehood under oath (e.g., false sworn accusations) — distinct from defamation but often overlaps factually.

III. What Makes a Statement “Defamatory”?

Accusations of crime (e.g., theft, fraud, harassment).
Assertions of professional dishonesty or incompetence.
Imputations of moral turpitude (e.g., infidelity stated as fact).
**Statements exposing a person to hatred, ridicule, or social ostracism.

Context matters: Courts consider the whole publication, tone, setting, audience, and innuendos. Hyperbole and obvious jokes may be protected; “clickbait” headlines that convey false facts are risky.

IV. Malice, Privilege, and Defenses

1) Presumption of Malice (Art. 354) & Its Exceptions

Malice is presumed in defamatory imputations unless they fall under privileged communications:

Absolutely privileged (no malice inquiry):
- Statements by legislators in congressional sessions;
- Judicial pleadings and statements if pertinent to issues;
- Official communications in the performance of duty (within scope and pertinence).
Qualifiedly privileged (malice-in-fact must be proven by complainant):
- Fair and true report of official proceedings made in good faith and without comments;
- Private communications in the performance of legal, moral, or social duty (e.g., good-faith HR complaint);
- Fair comment on matters of public interest or on public figures, as opinion; false statements of fact remain actionable.

2) Truth as a Defense (Art. 361)

Proof of truth may exculpate if the imputation is true and made with good motives and for justifiable ends (public-interest nexus helps).
For purely private matters, truth alone may not absolve if malice or lack of justifiable ends is shown.

3) Other Defenses and Mitigations

Lack of identifiability (the target cannot reasonably be known).
No publication (said only to the complainant).
Opinion, not fact: value judgments based on disclosed facts may be protected.
Retractions/apologies: do not erase liability but can mitigate penalties/damages.
Consent of the offended party.
Prescription (see §IX).

V. Cyber Libel (Online Defamation)

Defamation via ICT (websites, social media, messaging apps) generally constitutes cyber libel.
Penalty is one degree higher than offline libel; jurisdiction/venue issues are adapted to online publication.
Each repost or share that conveys the defamatory imputation can be treated as republication (fact-sensitive: algorithms vs. deliberate sharing).
Takedown powers are limited; courts may issue lawful orders (e.g., to preserve evidence, to remove specific unlawful content), but prior restraint is disfavored.

Practical risk points: public Facebook posts, viral X/TikTok videos, defamatory “story times,” closed groups with large membership, and doxxing with false allegations.

VI. Civil Liability: Two Tracks

A. Civil Action Together with the Criminal Case

Filing a criminal libel/slander case tacitly includes the civil action for damages unless waived or reserved.
Damages: moral, exemplary, temperate/actual, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

B. Independent Civil Action (Article 33 Civil Code)

The offended party may sue separately for defamation in a civil action (no need to await criminal case).
Standard of proof: preponderance of evidence (lower than criminal’s “proof beyond reasonable doubt”).
Prescription: generally treated as an injury to rights → 4 years from publication (distinct from the criminal prescriptive period).

VII. Venue and Jurisdiction (Criminal)

Libel: file where the offended party resided at the time of publication or where the material was printed/published. For public officers, special rules apply depending on office.
Slander: venue lies where the defamatory words were uttered.
Cyber libel: venue principles adjust to online publication—commonly where the offended party actually resides, where the accused posted, or where material facts occurred, subject to statutory and jurisprudential constraints.

Note: Wrong venue can be fatal to prosecution; get residence and publication facts straight.

VIII. Procedure: From Complaint to Judgment

Evidence Preservation
- Screenshot posts with URLs, timestamps, and handles; use hashing/forensic capture if available.
- Secure witnesses who saw/heard the publication.
- Keep copies of takedown requests and platform responses.
Filing the Complaint-Affidavit (City/Provincial Prosecutor)
- Attach evidence, identity documents, and proof of publication and residence.
- For oral defamation, affidavits of earwitnesses and context (tone, occasion, audience).
Counter-affidavits & Clarificatory Hearings
- Prosecutor resolves probable cause: whether to file an Information in court or dismiss.
In Court
- Arraignment, pre-trial, trial (prosecution then defense), judgment.
- Bail is generally available; probation may be possible if penalty threshholds are met.
Appeals
- From MTC/RTC to RTC/CA, then Supreme Court on questions of law.

IX. Prescriptive Periods (Criminal)

Libel and other similar offenses: 1 year from publication (Article 90 RPC special rule).
Oral defamation / slander by deed: follow the general RPC rules based on penalty imposable (often shorter than libel’s one-year special period for some instances).
Cyber libel: follow the libel one-year criminal prescription (commonly applied), counting from first publication; theories of continuing publication are limited.

Practice tip: File early. For online posts, treat the earliest clear publication date as Day 0.

X. Damages and Penalties

A. Criminal Penalties (high level)

Libel: imprisonment (prisión correccional min–med) or fine (statutorily updated to higher peso amounts).
Slander:
- Grave: higher penalties, potentially imprisonment or fine;
- Simple: arresto menor or fine (updated).
Slander by deed: ranges from arresto menor to prisión correccional depending on gravity.
Cyber libel: one degree higher than libel.

Courts increasingly calibrate fines (over imprisonment) for libel, but custodial penalties remain legally available.

B. Civil Damages

Moral damages for mental anguish, social humiliation, wounded feelings;
Exemplary damages to deter egregious conduct;
Temperate/actual damages with proof;
Attorney’s fees where justified.
Retractions/apologies can reduce damages; malice and reach (virality) can increase them.

XI. Public Figures, Public Concern, and “Actual Malice”

Public officials/figures and matters of public concern receive robust speech protection: plaintiffs may need to prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) especially where the statement concerns official conduct or public interest.
Fair comment protects opinions based on true or privileged facts; but false assertions of fact remain actionable.

XII. Practical Playbooks

A. For Complainants (Targets of False Accusations)

Preserve evidence (full-page captures with URL/timestamp; gather witnesses).
Demand letter (optional, may elicit retraction/apology; weigh risks of further publication).
Choose your forum:
- Criminal complaint (libel/slander/slander by deed; cyber libel if online).
- Independent civil action (Art. 33) for damages—useful when you want money relief and control of the timeline.
- Or both (with reservation/waiver rules managed carefully).
Venue strategy (residence vs. place of publication/uttering).
Remedies during pendency: motion for protection orders (no-contact/harassment), lawful takedown/removal requests to platforms, and preservation orders.

B. For Respondents (Accused of Defamation)

Audit the statements: are they opinion or verifiable fact? Identify privilege (judicial, official, fair comment, duty).
Collect counter-evidence: truth proofs, context, good faith efforts to verify, public-interest basis.
Challenge venue/prescription and publication (no third person).
Mitigate: consider clarification, correction, or apology; remove/limit access; avoid further republication.
Avoid compounding liability: do not retaliate with new defamatory posts.

XIII. Special Topics & Edge Cases

Group defamation: If a group is small and members are readily identifiable, any member may sue. Large, amorphous groups generally cannot.
Anonymous/alias posters: Possible to proceed against John/Jane Does; seek court-assisted discovery or preservation orders; platforms may disclose data upon lawful order.
Employer/HR complaints: Good-faith reports of misconduct made in the performance of duty are qualifiedly privileged; keep to need-to-know audiences.
Republishing and “likes/shares”: Endorsement with fresh defamatory context can attract liability; passive algorithmic displays typically do not, but fact patterns matter.
Defamation vs. legitimate reviews: Honest consumer reviews based on true experience and opinion are generally protected; avoid false factual assertions (“stole money,” “forged documents”) unless provably true.
Environmental/SLAPP note: The Philippines has SLAPP protection in environmental cases; no general anti-SLAPP statute for defamation—expect full-blown litigation if sued.

XIV. Templates (Short-Form)

A. Demand for Retraction and Apology

Subject: Retraction and Apology for Defamatory Accusations Dear [Name/Handle], On [date], you published statements accusing me of [allegation]. These are false and defamatory. Demand is made that within 48 hours you: (1) retract the statements, (2) delete the original and derivative posts, and (3) publish an apology of equal prominence. Failure to comply will leave me no choice but to pursue criminal and civil remedies. Sincerely, [Name]

B. Clarification/Correction (Mitigation by Respondent)

Subject: Clarification Regarding Prior Statements Dear [Audience/Platform], On [date], I posted comments about [Name]. I now clarify that my statements were opinion based on limited information and were not intended as factual assertions of criminal wrongdoing. I retract any implication to the contrary and apologize for any harm caused.

XV. Quick Reference: Checklists

Before Filing (Complainant)

Screenshots with URLs/timestamps and copies of the content
Witness affidavits (who saw/heard publication)
Proof of residence and publication facts (venue)
Clear theory: libel, slander, or slander by deed (or combo)
Decision on criminal, civil, or both (manage reservation)

Before Answering (Respondent)

Identify privilege or truth + good motives
Challenge publication/identifiability/prescription/venue
Consider apology/retraction to mitigate; cease republications

XVI. Key Takeaways

False accusations that harm reputation may ground criminal (libel/slander) and civil liability; cyber libel increases penalties.
Elements: defamatory imputation, malice, publication, and identifiability; malice is presumed except in privileged cases.
Defenses: privilege, truth with good motives, fair comment, opinion, lack of publication/identifiability, and prescription.
Strategy matters: choose the right forum, lock down venue, preserve evidence, and file within tight deadlines (criminal 1-year rule for libel).
Remedies include fines/imprisonment (criminal) and moral/exemplary damages and fees (civil); retractions/apologies mitigate exposure.

This article provides general legal information only. For case-specific advice (e.g., venue, prescription, available defenses, and damage strategy), consult Philippine counsel with your documents and timelines.