(Philippine legal context; general information, not legal advice.)

Why “guard cases” can become criminal cases quickly

Incidents involving security guards often trigger multiple possible offenses because one event can include:

words (insults, threats, shouting),
acts (spitting, slapping, throwing objects), and
injuries (bruises, cuts, fractures), plus sometimes a question of whether the guard is treated as an “agent of a person in authority” (which can elevate an assault into Direct Assault or Resistance/Disobedience under the Revised Penal Code).

In the Philippines, the likely criminal charges come mainly from the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and in online situations, the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175). Security guards themselves are regulated under R.A. 5487 (Private Security Agency Law), which matters for context, authority, and documentation.

1) Verbal Abuse / Insults: When do words become a crime?

A. Oral Defamation (Slander) — RPC Article 358

What it covers: Spoken words that impute a crime, vice, defect, or wrongdoing, or otherwise dishonor a person in a way that harms reputation.

Two forms:

Grave slander: more serious, depending on language used, circumstances, relationship, public setting, intent, etc.
Simple slander: less serious insult.

Typical “guard” fact patterns:

Shouting accusations like “magnanakaw ka,” “rapist,” “bisyo,” etc., in front of customers/employees.
Public humiliation with obscene, degrading statements aimed at the guard personally.

Key points:

The setting matters: being done in public or before many people tends to aggravate the reputational harm.
Truth is not automatically a defense in slander (and even in related crimes, defenses are technical and fact-specific).

B. Libel / Cyberlibel (if posted or messaged) — RPC Arts. 353–355; R.A. 10175

If insults or accusations are written, published, or posted (Facebook, TikTok, X, group chats, comments), the case shifts from slander to:

Libel (traditional publication), or
Cyberlibel (online publication).

Common “guard” scenarios:

Posting the guard’s name/photo and claiming they “stole,” “harassed,” or “threatened” you.
Encouraging harassment (“i-boycott,” “ipa-viral”) with defamatory accusations.

Important distinction:

A private message can still create exposure depending on how widely it’s shared and the context, but “publication” is a legal battleground in many cases—facts matter.

C. Slander by Deed — RPC Article 359

This is not about words, but acts that cast dishonor without necessarily causing physical injury (though it can overlap).

Examples often seen in guard incidents:

Spitting at the guard
Throwing a drink/food at the guard
Making obscene gestures meant to degrade

If the act also causes injury, prosecutors may consider physical injuries and/or other crimes in addition.

D. Intriguing Against Honor — RPC Article 364

This covers spreading rumor-like statements or insinuations that damage honor, especially where the mechanism is intrigue rather than a direct defamatory statement. It is less commonly charged than slander/libel but can appear in certain “gossip/instigation” scenarios.

E. Threats (spoken or implied) — RPC Articles 282–285 (varies by form)

Threat charges depend on what was threatened (harm? crime?), conditions, and seriousness.

Examples:

“Babalikan kita, papatayin kita” (possible grave threat depending on circumstances)
“Tignan mo paglabas mo” (may be treated as a threat depending on context and proof)

Threats often show up alongside assault or disturbance incidents.

2) Physical Assault: What are the likely charges?

A. Physical Injuries — RPC Articles 262–266 (common baseline)

If there’s any bodily harm, prosecutors typically start by classifying injuries as:

Serious physical injuries (e.g., long-term incapacity, loss of function, severe harm)
Less serious physical injuries
Slight physical injuries (minor injuries)

How classification is usually supported:

Medical certificate and/or medico-legal report (and documented days of treatment/incapacity are often central in practice).
CCTV footage, witness statements, incident reports.

Examples in guard cases:

Punching, kicking, elbowing, headbutting
Hitting with an object (bottle, baton grabbed from guard, metal item)
Pushing that results in falls and injury

If evidence suggests intent to kill, the case can move beyond “injuries” into Attempted/Frustrated Homicide (or worse), which is heavily fact-dependent (weapon used, targeting, severity, statements, follow-through, etc.).

B. Direct Assault / Resistance & Disobedience — RPC Articles 148 and 151

This is where “assault on guards” becomes legally nuanced.

1) Direct Assault (Art. 148)

This applies when a person attacks, uses force, or seriously intimidates a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority while performing official duties or by reason of such duties.

Person in authority: typically public officers with authority (e.g., barangay officials in certain functions, judges, etc.).
Agent of a person in authority: those who, by law or deputation, assist in maintaining public order or enforcing law.

What about private security guards? Private security guards are generally private employees, not automatically “agents of a person in authority.” However, there are situations where a guard may be treated as assisting authorities (for example, acting in cooperation with law enforcement or performing functions closely tied to public order under particular circumstances). Whether Direct Assault fits can become a legal and evidentiary fight.

Practical takeaway:

Assaulting a police officer, jail/prison guard, military personnel, or certain government security personnel almost always triggers the “authority/agent” framework.
Assaulting a mall/building security guard may still lead to Direct Assault depending on facts, but more commonly proceeds under physical injuries, grave coercion (in other fact patterns), unjust vexation/other light offenses (where applicable), local ordinances, and related offenses.

2) Resistance and Disobedience (Art. 151)

If the guard is treated as an agent (or is acting under authority in a way recognized by law), refusal to comply paired with resistance can be charged here, often alongside injuries or disturbance-related offenses.

C. Other crimes that can attach to “assault on guards” incidents

Depending on behavior, prosecutors may consider:

Grave Coercion / Light Coercion (forcing someone to do/stop doing something by violence/intimidation; fact-specific)
Alarms and Scandals / Disorderly Conduct (RPC and/or local ordinances; typically for public disturbance, yelling, chaos)
Malicious Mischief / Damage to Property (breaking doors, smashing counters, destroying guard equipment)
Illegal possession of bladed weapon/firearm charges (if the suspect had a weapon in prohibited circumstances; depends on current statutes and local enforcement)
Trespass to dwelling (rare in commercial guard situations; more relevant in residential/private premises contexts)

3) “Insults + Assault” together: Typical charge combinations

A single incident can lead to a package of cases, such as:

Oral defamation (slander) + slight/less serious physical injuries
Slander by deed (e.g., spitting) + physical injuries (if injuries also occur)
Threats + physical injuries
Cyberlibel (posting accusations after the incident) + underlying injuries case
Direct assault (if the victim legally qualifies) + physical injuries

4) Evidence that usually decides these cases

In “guard incidents,” outcomes often turn on documentation more than arguments:

CCTV footage (angle, continuity, who initiated force, escalation)
Incident reports (guard logbook, supervisor report, establishment report)
Witnesses (employees, customers, other guards)
Medical records (ER records, medical certificate, medico-legal)
Online evidence (screenshots, URLs, timestamps, share counts—best preserved properly)

5) Procedure in the Philippines (high-level)

Criminal track (typical):

Incident is reported to building security/management and/or police.
Statements are taken; injuries documented.
Case may proceed to:
- Inquest (if arrest occurred and suspect is detained), or
- Regular complaint before the prosecutor (if no detention).
Prosecutor determines probable cause and files in court.

Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay) may apply in some cases

Some minor disputes between private individuals residing/located in the same locality can require barangay conciliation first, but there are many exceptions, and serious offenses usually bypass it. Whether it applies depends on the offense charged, penalty levels, parties’ addresses, and other statutory exceptions.

6) Civil liability and other consequences (often overlooked)

Even if a criminal case is reduced or dismissed, an offender may face:

Civil damages (medical expenses, lost income, moral damages, etc.)
Administrative consequences (workplace sanctions if the offender is an employee; bans from establishments)
Contractual/establishment remedies (blacklisting, trespass notices, incident reports shared across branches)

7) Common defenses and issues (context, not advice)

Self-defense is possible but requires specific elements (e.g., unlawful aggression by the other party, reasonable necessity of means, lack of sufficient provocation).
Defamation defenses can involve context, privileged communications, absence of defamatory imputation, lack of publication (for libel/cyberlibel), and identification issues—highly fact-specific.
Mutual affray scenarios can complicate who is criminally liable and for what.

8) Quick guide: “What charge fits what behavior?”

Shouting degrading insults in public → often Oral Defamation (Slander)
Accusing the guard of a crime publicly → Slander (or Libel/Cyberlibel if written/posted)
Spitting, humiliating gesture, throwing drink → Slander by Deed (plus other charges if injury occurs)
Punching/kicking causing bruises/cuts → Physical Injuries (degree depends on medical findings)
Threatening harm (“papatayin kita”) → Threats (classification depends on details)
Attacking a police/jail/prison guard on duty → likely Direct Assault + Injuries
Attacking a private security guard → commonly Injuries, sometimes argued as Direct Assault depending on authority/agent factors

Bottom line

In the Philippines, verbal abuse toward guards can be prosecuted as slander, slander by deed, threats, or libel/cyberlibel (if posted). Physical attacks typically start as physical injuries, but can escalate to attempted/frustrated homicide or direct assault depending on intent, injury severity, and whether the victim is treated as an authority/agent under law.

If you want, describe a specific scenario (what was said/done, where, whether posted online, injuries, and whether the guard was private security vs government), and I can map the most likely charge set and the key elements that prosecutors usually look for.