Slander and Libel Prescription Periods in the Philippines: How Long Do You Have to File?

Introduction

In the Philippines, defamation laws protect individuals from false statements that harm their reputation, honor, or credit. These laws distinguish between libel, which involves written or published defamation, and slander, which refers to oral defamation. Both are criminal offenses under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but they can also give rise to civil claims for damages under the Civil Code. A critical aspect of pursuing these claims is the prescription period—the time limit within which a complaint must be filed. Missing this window renders the action time-barred, meaning it can no longer be pursued in court.

This article comprehensively explores the prescription periods for slander and libel in the Philippine legal system, including their definitions, applicable laws, how the periods are computed, exceptions, and related considerations such as cyberlibel and civil remedies. Understanding these timelines is essential for offended parties to act promptly and for potential defendants to anticipate when liability may expire.

Definitions and Distinctions

Under Philippine jurisprudence, defamation is broadly defined as any act that discredits or dishonors a person. The RPC provides specific provisions:

Libel (Article 353, RPC): This is defamation committed through writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means. It requires that the defamatory statement be published or communicated to a third party, imputing a crime, vice, defect, or condition that causes dishonor or contempt.
Slander (Article 358, RPC): Also known as oral defamation, this involves spoken words that defame another person. It is classified into two types:
- Simple slander: Less grave oral defamation, punishable by arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) or a fine not exceeding P200.
- Grave slander: Serious oral defamation, considering the social standing of the parties and circumstances, punishable by arresto mayor (1 month 1 day to 6 months) in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine from P200 to P1,000.
Slander by Deed (Article 359, RPC): This refers to any act (not words) that casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person, such as slapping someone in public without justification. It is punishable similarly to grave slander if serious, or simple slander if not.

These offenses are mala prohibita, meaning intent to defame is presumed from the act itself, though truth and good motives can be defenses under Article 354 of the RPC for privileged communications.

Legal Basis for Prescription Periods

Prescription periods for criminal offenses in the Philippines are governed by Article 90 of the RPC, as amended, and Act No. 3326 (An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances). However, the RPC takes precedence for offenses defined therein.

Article 90 outlines general rules based on the gravity of the penalty:

Afflictive penalties (e.g., prision mayor): 15 years.
Correctional penalties (e.g., prision correccional): 10 years.
Light penalties (e.g., arresto menor): 2 months to 5 years.

Crucially, it includes special rules for defamation:

Libel and other similar offenses: 1 year.
Oral defamation (slander) and slander by deed: 6 months.

These shorter periods reflect the policy that defamation cases should be resolved quickly to minimize prolonged harm to reputation while allowing time for reconciliation or retraction.

For civil actions arising from defamation, the New Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) applies. Article 1146 provides that actions for damages based on quasi-delict (tort) prescribe in 4 years from the time the cause of action accrues.

Prescription Periods in Detail

Criminal Prescription Periods

Libel: The offense prescribes in 1 year. This applies to all forms of written or published defamation under Article 353. The period is notably shorter than for other correctional penalties to encourage swift action and prevent stale claims.
Slander (Oral Defamation): This prescribes in 6 months. The distinction between simple and grave slander does not affect the prescription period; both fall under this timeline.
Slander by Deed: Similarly, this prescribes in 6 months, aligned with oral defamation due to its non-written nature.

These periods are interruptible. Under Article 91 of the RPC, prescription runs from the day the crime is committed. However, if the offense is not immediately known, it starts from the date of discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. Filing a complaint with the prosecutor's office or court interrupts the period.

Civil Prescription Periods

Defamation can also be pursued civilly for moral, nominal, or exemplary damages, independent of or simultaneous with criminal proceedings (Article 33, Civil Code). The prescription period for such actions is 4 years from the accrual of the cause of action, typically the date of publication or utterance when the harm occurs.

Importantly, a criminal acquittal does not bar a civil action, as the standards of proof differ (preponderance of evidence for civil vs. proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal). However, if the criminal case is filed first and includes civil liability, the civil aspect may be subsumed unless reserved.

Computation of the Prescription Period

Starting Point: For libel, the period begins on the date of publication—the moment the defamatory material is communicated to a third party. For slander, it starts when the words are spoken or the deed is performed in the presence of others. If the offended party discovers it later, the discovery rule applies, but only if the delay is justifiable (e.g., the statement was made in private and later revealed).
Interruptions: The period is interrupted by:
- Filing a complaint with the fiscal (prosecutor) or court.
- Any act by the accused acknowledging liability (e.g., retraction).
- Extrajudicial demands or negotiations, in some interpretations.
Tolling: Prescription does not run against minors or incapacitated persons until their legal representation acts. In cases involving public officials or figures, the period remains the same, though actual malice must be proven (New York Times v. Sullivan influence via Philippine case law).
Multiple Publications: Each distinct publication of the same libelous material (e.g., reposting online) may start a new prescription period, known as the "multiple publication rule." However, Philippine courts have leaned toward the "single publication rule" for mass media, where one edition counts as a single publication.

Exceptions and Special Considerations

Privileged Communications: Absolute privilege (e.g., statements in judicial proceedings) or qualified privilege (e.g., fair reporting) may defeat a claim altogether, rendering prescription moot.
Retraction and Mitigation: A timely retraction can reduce penalties but does not extend or reset prescription.
Jurisdiction and Venue: Complaints must be filed where the offended party resides or where the libel was printed and first published (Article 360, RPC). For slander, it's where the words were uttered. Improper venue can lead to dismissal, indirectly affecting timeliness.
Cyberlibel: Under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), libel committed through computer systems or the internet is punishable by a penalty one degree higher than traditional libel (prision mayor minimum, or 6 years 1 day to 8 years). This raises questions about prescription. While Article 90's 1-year rule explicitly applies to "libel," the higher penalty classifies it as an afflictive offense, potentially extending prescription to 15 years. Jurisprudence is evolving; some lower courts apply the 1-year rule, viewing cyberlibel as "similar" to traditional libel, while others argue for 15 years based on penalty gravity. The Supreme Court has not definitively resolved this, but in Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014), it upheld cyberlibel's constitutionality without addressing prescription directly. Offended parties should file within 1 year to be safe, as conservative interpretations prevail.
Decriminalization Efforts: There have been legislative proposals to decriminalize libel (e.g., focusing on civil remedies), but as of current law, it remains criminal. Prescription periods would change if decriminalized, aligning solely with civil rules.

Practical Implications and Advice

For offended parties, documenting the defamatory act immediately is crucial—save publications, record statements, and note dates. Consult a lawyer promptly to assess if the period has started and to file before expiration. Defendants can raise prescription as a defense via motion to quash.

In the digital age, with social media amplifying defamation, the short periods underscore the need for vigilance. However, these laws balance free speech (Article III, Section 4, 1987 Constitution) with reputation protection, often scrutinized for chilling effects on journalism.

Conclusion

The prescription periods for slander and libel in the Philippines—1 year for libel and 6 months for slander—reflect a deliberate legislative choice to resolve defamation disputes expediently. Civil actions offer a longer 4-year window for damages. With the advent of cyberlibel, uncertainties persist, but adherence to the shortest applicable period is advisable. Ultimately, these timelines ensure justice is neither delayed nor denied, preserving both individual rights and societal harmony. Parties involved in such cases should seek professional legal counsel to navigate these nuances effectively.