1) What “slander” is under Philippine law

In Philippine criminal law, slander generally refers to oral defamation—a spoken defamatory statement that harms another person’s reputation. It is a crime under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 358 (Oral Defamation).

Related but different:

Libel (written/printed/online publication) is usually prosecuted under RPC Articles 353–355 (and may involve cyberlibel under R.A. 10175 when committed through a computer system).
Slander by deed (Article 359) covers defamatory acts (not primarily words), such as humiliating gestures or acts that dishonor a person.

This article focuses on slander/oral defamation.

2) Criminal vs. civil options

A person harmed by slander may pursue:

Criminal case (to punish the offender with imprisonment and/or fine), and
Civil damages (to recover monetary compensation).

Key points:

In many criminal cases, the civil action for damages is deemed included with the criminal case unless properly waived, reserved, or separately filed under the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
There is also an independent civil action for defamation under the Civil Code (commonly invoked alongside the general provisions on human relations and privacy), where the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence (lower than “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases).

3) Elements prosecutors/courts look for in oral defamation

While wording varies in decisions, oral defamation typically requires proof of these core ideas:

A defamatory imputation The statement imputes a crime, vice, defect, misconduct, dishonorable act/condition, or tends to discredit/dishonor a person.
Identity of the person defamed The victim is identifiable—by name, nickname, position, or surrounding circumstances.
Publication to a third person It must be heard by someone other than the person being defamed and the speaker.
Malice Malice is often presumed in defamatory imputations, subject to defenses like privileged communications or lack of malice.

“Serious” vs “slight” oral defamation

Article 358 distinguishes between:

Serious oral defamation (more insulting, more damaging, more abusive; context matters), and
Slight oral defamation (less severe; penalties are lighter).

Courts consider context, including:

the exact words used (including local language nuances),
tone and manner,
relationship of the parties,
the place and audience (public vs private),
provocation (if any),
whether it was repeated,
the social standing/role of the parties (e.g., public official vs private citizen) insofar as it affects context and defenses.

4) Early triage: Is it really “slander,” or something else?

Before filing, classify the act correctly, because the procedure and venue can change.

A) Spoken words only, heard by others → likely oral defamation (slander)

Example: someone shouts an accusation at you in a hallway and other people hear it.

B) Spoken words recorded and posted online → may shift into libel/cyberlibel territory

If it becomes a published recording (video/audio) circulated publicly, prosecution may treat it as libel/cyberlibel rather than simple “slander,” depending on how it was disseminated.

C) Purely private conversation with no third person → usually no “publication”

If nobody else heard it, it generally fails the “publication” requirement for defamation (though other legal remedies may still exist depending on facts).

5) Evidence checklist (what to gather before filing)

Oral defamation cases commonly rise or fall on evidence. Collect immediately.

A) Witnesses

Names, addresses, contact numbers of people who heard the defamatory statement.
Short written summaries from each witness: date, time, place, exact words as remembered, who was present.

B) Your narrative and identification

A clear timeline of events.
Why the statement is false/defamatory.
How you were identified (name, pointed at, known as “the only HR manager,” etc.).

C) Audio/video recordings — caution

Philippine law has strict rules on recording private communications (commonly raised under R.A. 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Act). If the communication is arguably private, secret recording can create legal risk and can complicate admissibility and strategy. Public, non-private utterances may be treated differently, but the risk is fact-specific. Many complainants rely primarily on witness testimony and surrounding evidence rather than covert recordings.

D) Other corroboration

Screenshots of follow-up messages referencing the spoken incident (“I can’t believe you called me a thief in front of everyone”).
CCTV footage showing the confrontation (even if audio is absent, it can corroborate occurrence, crowd presence, and timing).
Incident reports (workplace/security logs).

6) Check prescription (time limits) early

Defamation-related offenses can prescribe quickly depending on the penalty classification (light vs correctional). Slight oral defamation can have a much shorter prescriptive period than serious oral defamation. Do not delay—evaluate promptly because a late filing can be dismissed for being time-barred.

7) Determine whether Barangay conciliation is required first (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Before court/prosecutor filing, many disputes between individuals in the same city/municipality must undergo barangay mediation/conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay system—unless an exception applies.

Practical guidance:

Seriousness of the offense (penalty level) and where parties reside are common triggers for whether barangay proceedings are required.
If the matter falls under barangay jurisdiction and you skip it, the case can be dismissed for prematurity (lack of a required pre-condition).

What you do at the barangay:

File a complaint at the barangay where the respondent resides or where rules direct.
Attend mediation/conciliation sessions.
If no settlement, secure a Certificate to File Action (or the proper barangay certification), which you attach to your court/prosecutor filing.

Because defamation classifications and barangay rules can be technical in application, many complainants confirm this step at the barangay or with counsel immediately.

8) Choose where to file the criminal case (and what happens next)

Option 1: File with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (common route)

Even when a full preliminary investigation is not required (because penalties may be below the threshold that triggers mandatory preliminary investigation), complainants often start here.

Steps

Prepare a Complaint-Affidavit (sworn).
Attach supporting affidavits of witnesses and evidence.
Submit to the prosecutor’s office with required copies.
The respondent is usually required to submit a Counter-Affidavit (unless the case proceeds under a faster process depending on local practice and rules).
The prosecutor evaluates probable cause and, if warranted, files an Information in court.

Option 2: File directly in court (MTC/MeTC/MCTC)

Oral defamation is generally tried in the first-level courts (Municipal Trial Court/Metropolitan Trial Court/Municipal Circuit Trial Court), depending on location.

Steps

Prepare a sworn complaint/affidavits and attachments.
File with the proper first-level court.
Court evaluates and, if sufficient, issues process (summons/warrant depending on posture and rules).

In practice, many people prefer the prosecutor route because it systematizes probable cause evaluation and case filing, but direct court filing is used in appropriate situations.

9) Venue (where to file)

Venue is typically where the defamatory words were uttered and heard (the place of commission). If multiple places are involved (e.g., repeated statements in different venues), strategy may change.

10) Drafting the Complaint-Affidavit (what it should contain)

A good complaint-affidavit is clear, chronological, and specific.

A) Caption / parties

Your name and address (complainant)
Respondent’s name and address

B) Statement of facts Include:

Date, time, and exact place.
The exact words spoken (as best as remembered) in the original language, plus an English translation if needed.
Who were present and who heard it (name witnesses).
How you were identified.
Why the imputation is defamatory and false (or, if not about falsity, why it was dishonoring and malicious).
Harm caused (humiliation, workplace impact, social impact).

C) Attachments

Witness affidavits
Any corroborative evidence
Barangay certification (if required)

D) Prayer

That respondent be prosecuted for Oral Defamation (Article 358, RPC) (or Slander by Deed, if that’s the correct classification).
That civil damages be awarded (if you are not reserving a separate civil action).

E) Verification and oath

Signed and sworn before an authorized officer (prosecutor office admin, notary public, etc., depending on filing requirements).

11) Defenses you should anticipate (and how they affect strategy)

Respondents commonly argue:

A) No publication

“No one else heard it” or “only the complainant was present.”

Response strategy: witnesses and context evidence become critical.

B) Not defamatory / mere opinion / not directed at complainant

They claim it was a general statement, joke, rant, or opinion.

Response strategy: show identifiability, context, and how ordinary listeners understood it.

C) Privileged communication

Some statements can be privileged (absolute or qualified), especially in certain official proceedings or where public interest and good faith are involved.

Response strategy: show malice, lack of good faith, or that privilege does not apply.

D) Truth + good motives and justifiable ends

Truth alone is not always enough; the law considers motives/ends in certain contexts.

Response strategy: show falsity where applicable, or show the lack of justifiable end/malice in manner and audience.

E) Provocation

Provocation can reduce liability or affect seriousness/penalty.

Response strategy: document what happened before and whether provocation exists and how it compares to the respondent’s reaction.

12) What happens after filing (criminal process timeline)

While sequencing can vary by court and local practice, the usual flow is:

Evaluation of probable cause (prosecutor and/or judge depending on route)
If probable cause exists: filing of Information and issuance of court process
Arraignment (accused enters plea)
Pre-trial (stipulations, marking evidence, possible settlement of civil aspect)
Trial (prosecution witnesses, then defense)
Judgment
Appeal (if applicable)

Bail and appearances

Oral defamation is typically bailable. Missing hearings can cause delays or adverse consequences, so witness availability matters.

13) Damages (civil aspect) in slander cases

If pursued (either implied with the criminal case or through an independent civil action), damages can include:

Moral damages (mental anguish, humiliation)
Exemplary damages (to deter, when circumstances justify)
Actual damages (documented financial loss, if any)
Attorney’s fees (in proper cases)

Courts consider the gravity, publicity, extent of harm, and conduct of parties.

14) Practical pitfalls that commonly derail slander complaints

No credible third-party witnesses and no strong corroboration
Delay leading to prescription issues
Misclassification (it’s actually libel/cyberlibel or another offense)
Skipping required barangay conciliation when applicable
Vague affidavits that don’t quote words, identify listeners, or describe context
Overreliance on risky recordings without considering privacy/anti-wiretapping issues
Naming the wrong respondent (e.g., a sharer/uploader instead of original speaker, or vice versa, depending on facts)

15) Quick step-by-step summary (action sequence)

Write down details immediately: exact words, date/time/place, who heard it.
Secure witnesses and have them execute sworn affidavits.
Collect corroborating evidence (CCTV, messages, incident reports).
Check prescription risk (act promptly).
Assess barangay conciliation requirement; if required, complete it and obtain certification.
Prepare a sworn Complaint-Affidavit with attachments.
File either with the prosecutor’s office (common) or directly in the appropriate first-level court.
Participate in proceedings: counter-affidavits (if required), hearings, pre-trial, trial.
Pursue damages through the included civil aspect or a separate civil case where appropriate.

16) Important note on fines/penalties

The Revised Penal Code provides the penalty ranges for oral defamation and distinguishes between serious and slight forms. Monetary fine amounts in older texts were later revised by legislation adjusting fines. For precise, current fine amounts and how the penalty applies to specific facts (serious vs slight), the charging assessment typically matches the facts, context, and current penalty schedule.