Legal Action for Slander and Phishing in the Philippines

I. Overview

Defamation and cyber-enabled fraud occupy very different corners of Philippine criminal law, yet both revolve around abuse of communication. Slander (oral defamation) injures reputation through spoken words, while phishing deceives victims into surrendering credentials or money through electronic tricks. Each has a distinct doctrinal base, procedure, and remedial palette, but they often converge in practice when defamatory statements or fraudulent schemes travel through social-media posts, emails, or messaging apps. This article distills the entire Philippine legal framework governing (1) slander—including its online counterpart, cyber-libel—and (2) phishing and related computer-related fraud.

II. Slander (Oral Defamation)

Legal Source	Key Provisions
Revised Penal Code (RPC) Arts. 353–362	Art. 353 (definition of defamation); Art. 358 (penalties for slander); Art. 360 (venue & filing rules)
Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) §4(c)(4)	Elevates libel committed “through a computer system” (commonly dubbed cyber-libel) one degree higher than conventional libel
Civil Code Art. 26 & Art. 33	Parallel civil action for damages may proceed independently of the criminal case

A. Definition & Elements

Imputation of a discreditable act, condition, status or circumstance;
Publication or communication in the presence of a third person;
Malice, presumed upon proof of the first two elements;
Victim is identifiable;
For slander specifically, the utterance is spoken (not written).

B. Classification & Penalties

Type	Criteria	Penalty (RPC Art. 358, as amended by RA 10951)
Serious slander	Grossly insulting or grievously offensive; no fine alternative	Arresto mayor (maximum) to prisión correccional (minimum) (1 mo. & 1 day – 6 years)
Slight slander	Light insults not falling under light felonies	Arresto menor (1 day – 30 days) or a fine up to ₱20,000

Prescription: 1 year from publication (RPC Art. 90).
Cyber-libel: treated as a special law offense; prevailing practice applies the 12-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326.

C. Defenses

Qualified Privilege: statements in official, judicial, or legislative proceedings; fair and true report in public interest; commentaries on public figures in good faith.
Absolute Privilege: speeches by legislators in Congress, pleadings filed in court.
Truth + Good Motive: complete defense if the defamatory imputation involves a crime and both truth and good motives are shown.
Retraction or Apology: may mitigate but does not erase criminal liability.

D. Procedure

Affidavit-Complaint: Filed with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor where the slander was uttered or where the offended party resides (Art. 360).
Preliminary Investigation: Prosecutor issues a Resolution; if probable cause exists, an Information is filed in the appropriate Municipal/Regional Trial Court (or special cybercrime court for cyber-libel).
Arraignment & Trial: Bail is usually available.
Civil Action: May be filed separately or deemed instituted with the criminal case (Rule 111, Rules of Criminal Procedure).

E. Landmark Jurisprudence

Case	Gist
U.S. v. Tolentino (1913)	Defined malice & degree of insult for serious vs slight slander
People v. Santiago (1934)	Clarified publication requirement in oral defamation
Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. 203335, 11 Feb 2014)	Upheld constitutionality of cyber-libel; struck down aiding & abetting if vague

III. Phishing and Computer-Related Fraud

Legal Source	Key Provisions
RA 10175 (Cybercrime) §4(b)(1)–(3), §6–7	Computer-related forgery, fraud, identity theft; penalty: prisión mayor (6 – 12 years) & ₱200,000 min. fine
Access Devices Regulation Act (RA 8484)	Credit-card & ATM “skimming,” possession of unauthorized access devices
E-Commerce Act (RA 8792) §33	Hacking and unauthorized access (pre-RA 10175)
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) §§25–34	Unauthorized processing or disclosure of personal data; relevant when credentials constitute “personal information”
Revised Penal Code (general)	Estafa (Art. 315) may be charged alongside cyber-fraud

A. What Constitutes Phishing

A scheme—usually via email, SMS, chat or a fake website—designed to:

Deceive a user into revealing authentication data;
Misappropriate that data to obtain money, property or any advantage;
Utilize a computer system as the means or the target of the fraud.

The act neatly fits computer-related identity theft under RA 10175 §4(b)(3), plus computer-related fraud under §4(b)(2).

B. Elements (RA 10175)

Input, alteration, destruction or suppression of computer data;
Intent to procure an economic or moral benefit, or to cause damage;
Resulting in the real or potential prejudice to another.

C. Penalties & Prescription

Offense	Penalty	Prescriptive Period
Computer-related fraud	Prisión mayor & fine ≥ ₱200 k	15 years (Act No. 3326 rule: penalty ≥ 6 yrs ⇒ 15 yrs)
Identity theft	Same as above plus “one-degree higher” if involving critical infrastructure or a syndicate	15 years

Accessory Penalties: forfeiture of proceeds, confiscation of equipment, deportation for aliens, and/or mandatory restitution.

D. Enforcement Agencies

PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG)
NBI Cybercrime Division
Department of Justice – Office of Cybercrime (OOC)
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), for financial sector breaches (e.g., 2023 BSP Circular 1140 on fraud reporting)
DICT Cybersecurity Bureau for coordinated takedowns of malicious domains

E. Procedural Highlights

Stage	Key Points
Preservation Request	Investigators can direct ISPs to preserve logs for 30 days (RA 10175 §13).
Warrants	Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC): Warrant to Disclose, Intercept, Search, Seize, Examine Computer Data (WDCD, WICD, WSC, etc.).
Venue	Any place where an element occurred or the computer data is stored; Internet Protocol (IP) location evidence suffices.
Extradition & MLAT	Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties allow cross-border data requests (e.g., PH-US MLAT 1994).

F. Civil & Administrative Remedies

Damages (Art. 33, Civil Code) for deceit or fraud.
Data Privacy Complaints before the National Privacy Commission (NPC).
Bank Charge-Backs under RA 8484 & BSP rules for unauthorized electronic fund transfers.
Asset Freeze under Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) for proceeds in digital wallets.

IV. Practical Roadmap for Victims

Step	Slander	Phishing
1. Secure Evidence	Record, obtain witnesses, screenshots if online	Preserve emails, URLs, SMS; request transaction logs from the bank
2. Sworn Statement	Executed before prosecutor or notary	Same, plus forensic copy if possible
3. Report	Barangay (optional for mediation), then City/Provincial Prosecutor	PNP-ACG, NBI, bank/FI, NPC
4. File Complaint	Within 1 year (slander) or 12 years (cyber-libel)	Within 15 years (cyber-fraud)
5. Attend Hearings	Testify, present witnesses	Provide expert testimony, digital forensics
6. Recover Loss	File civil action for damages	Civil action + bank recovery + asset tracing

V. Defenses & Mitigating Factors

Offense	Possible Defenses
Slander/Libel	Truth; qualified privilege; lack of malice; unidentifiable victim; statute of limitations; good-faith fair comment
Phishing	No intent to defraud; absence of deceit; authorization to access system; coerced confession; chain-of-custody issues in digital evidence

VI. Recent Trends & Policy Debates

Decriminalization of Libel: Several bills (e.g., HB 6300, SB 2521) propose making defamation purely civil to curb “libel chill.”
Higher Penalties for Online Fraud: RA 11971 (2024) amends RA 10175, increasing fines to ₱500 k–₱2 m and making restitution mandatory.
SIM Registration Act (RA 11934, 2022) aims to cut SMS-based phishing but poses data-privacy challenges.
Supreme Court Electronic Evidence Rules: A.M. 01-7-01-SC now routinely admits screenshots and metadata, provided integrity is proven.

VII. Comparative Snapshot

Jurisdiction	Criminal Defamation?	Stand-Alone Phishing Law?
Philippines	Yes (RPC & RA 10175)	Yes (RA 10175 + RA 8484)
Singapore	Yes (POHA) but majority civil	Yes, Computer Misuse Act
U.S. (Federal)	No (defamation purely civil)	Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA)
UK	No (criminal defamation abolished 2009)	Computer Misuse Act + Fraud Act

VIII. Conclusion

The Philippines maintains a dual-track regime: conventional oral defamation under the Revised Penal Code and technology-specific crimes under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. While slander prosecutions still hinge on traditional doctrines of malice and privilege, the migration of speech to digital platforms has intensified liability through cyber-libel. Phishing, on the other hand, is prosecuted as computer-related fraud or identity theft, augmented by sector-specific statutes and tighter banking regulations.

Effective vindication of rights demands prompt evidence preservation, strategic recourse to cyber-crime units, and a calibrated mix of criminal, civil, and administrative remedies. As Congress and the courts recalibrate penalties and defenses, practitioners must track evolving jurisprudence—particularly on prescription, venue, and constitutionality—to navigate the complex intersection of speech, privacy, and digital finance.