Oral Defamation (Slander) in the Philippines: A Comprehensive Legal Overview

Oral defamation—often referred to as “slander”—is a criminal offense under Philippine law. It involves the malicious imputation of a crime, a vice, a defect, or any act or omission which tends to discredit or dishonor a person, when such imputation is made orally or through spoken word. Below is a comprehensive legal discussion that covers the definition, elements, types, penalties, defenses, and related considerations involving oral defamation in the Philippines.

1. Legal Basis

The primary legal basis for oral defamation (slander) in the Philippines is the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815). Specifically, the crime of oral defamation is covered under Article 358, which states:

“Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature (grave slander), and by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos if it is of a light nature (simple slander).”

The provisions on defamation—both libel (written) and slander (oral)—are further governed by the general definitions and rules in Articles 353 to 362 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. Definition and Nature of Oral Defamation

2.1 Defamation in General

Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, defamation is defined as:

“the publication of any false statement which tends to impeach the honesty, virtue, or reputation or to hold a person up to public ridicule.”

When spoken or uttered verbally, this offense is classified as slander or oral defamation.

2.2 Distinguishing Libel from Slander

Libel is defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.
Slander (Oral Defamation) is defamation committed through spoken word. It does not require publication in a tangible medium but does require the utterance of defamatory statements before a third party (i.e., someone other than the offended party).

3. Elements of Oral Defamation

To establish the crime of oral defamation, the prosecution typically must prove the following:

There is an imputation of a discreditable act or condition.
The statement must charge the offended party with an act or omission that tends to stain his or her reputation.
It is made publicly or uttered in the presence of a third party.
A defamatory statement made only to the offended party without a third party present would generally not constitute defamation (it would lack publication). However, if at least one other person hears it, the requirement of publication/communication to a third party is satisfied.
The imputation is malicious.
Malice is presumed in every defamatory utterance. However, it can be rebutted by establishing a lawful or justifiable motive. Still, the presumption often shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show there was no malice.
The offended party is identifiable.
The person defamed must be identifiable—either through explicit mention of the name or by sufficient context that others know who is being referred to.

4. Degrees of Oral Defamation

4.1 Grave (Serious) Oral Defamation

Grave oral defamation, often referred to as “grave slander,” is punished more severely. Factors that may lead to a finding of grave slander include:

The use of particularly insulting or malicious language.
The presence of personal circumstances, or the social standing of the offended party and the offender.
The occasion, place, or context that aggravated the insulting nature of the statement (e.g., insulting someone in a public event).

Under Article 358, the penalty for grave slander is:

Arresto mayor in its maximum period (4 months and 1 day to 6 months) to
Prisión correccional in its minimum period (6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months).

4.2 Simple (Light) Oral Defamation

If the defamation is not considered serious, it is treated as simple or light oral defamation. The penalty is:

Arresto menor (1 day to 30 days) or
A fine not exceeding 200 pesos (note that the amount remains unchanged in the original text of the Revised Penal Code, though modern courts may adjust nominally).

Distinguishing grave from simple oral defamation often hinges on the specific words used, the context in which they were uttered, and the effect on the victim’s reputation.

5. Penalties and Criminal Liability

Penalties for oral defamation are typically imprisonment (arresto menor to prisión correccional, depending on the severity) or a fine, or both. Additionally, the offender may be held civilly liable for damages arising from the defamatory statement. In the Philippines, criminal cases typically include a civil aspect by default (unless specifically waived or reserved), enabling the offended party to claim damages for the harm caused.

6. Defenses and Exceptions

6.1 Truth as a Defense

Unlike in libel cases, truth alone is generally not always a complete defense in slander cases if the imputation is not directed toward a public figure or a matter of public interest. For libel and slander involving matters of public concern, truth can be a defense if it is shown that the statement was made with good motives and for justifiable ends. However, in many ordinary oral defamation cases involving private persons, even if the statement is true, if it is made with the intent to shame or insult, it can still be considered defamatory.

6.2 Privileged Communication

Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious” except in two instances:

Private communication in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty.
Fair and true report made in good faith of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceeding.

While these often apply more distinctly to libel cases, there can be situations where spoken statements are considered privileged if they are uttered in specific contexts (e.g., in court proceedings, legislative inquiries, or certain lawful gatherings). Yet, if such privilege is abused (i.e., used as a cloak for intentional slander), malice can still be inferred.

6.3 Lack of Publication or Communication to a Third Party

If it can be demonstrated that the alleged defamatory statement was not heard by any third party—or that the offended party was alone with the accused—no “publication” occurs, and oral defamation would generally not lie.

6.4 Other Justifying Circumstances

An accused may invoke justifying or exempting circumstances under the general provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Articles 11–12), such as self-defense of honor, or impulse of an uncontrollable fear, if circumstances are present. However, courts evaluate such defenses strictly, and the burden to prove them typically lies on the accused.

7. Procedural Aspects

7.1 Filing a Complaint

In most cases, oral defamation is initiated by filing a criminal complaint before the Office of the Prosecutor (City or Provincial Prosecutor’s Office).
The complaint must detail the alleged incident, the exact words spoken, and the circumstances of time, place, and manner.

7.2 Prosecution and Evidence

The prosecution must present evidence of the utterance, including testimony from the offended party and other witnesses who heard the statement.
The precise words used are generally considered vital; direct testimonies are highly valued to establish the defamatory nature and the manner in which they were uttered.

7.3 Prescription Period

The prescriptive period for oral defamation is typically six (6) months counted from the day the crime is committed, pursuant to Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code for offenses punished by arresto mayor or lower.
However, judicial interpretation or specific local rulings may affect exact computation in practice. A complaint must be filed within this period, or the action may be barred by prescription.

8. Related Offenses

8.1 Slander by Deed (Article 359)

Under Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code, “Slander by deed” involves performing an act (instead of uttering words) that is meant to cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon a person (for example, spitting on someone in public). Though related to oral defamation, it is a distinct crime governed by a separate provision.

8.2 Libel (Article 355)

Libel is the written or similarly broadcasted form of defamation, as opposed to the spoken form. Although both forms of defamation punish the same harm—injury to reputation—libel and slander have distinct legal requirements and penalties.

9. Selected Jurisprudence and Guidelines

Philippine jurisprudence provides various nuances for slander cases, especially in distinguishing between grave and simple slander, determining what constitutes “serious” and “insulting” language, and clarifying the interplay between freedom of expression and the right to protect one’s honor. While each case is decided based on its specific facts, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized:

Context is crucial. The same words may be considered grave or serious in one context and not in another, depending on factors such as the relationship between the parties, their social standing, and the manner in which the statements were uttered.
Malice is generally presumed. The burden shifts to the defendant to prove lack of malice or to show that the statement was privileged or justified.
There is no hard-and-fast rule for penalties. Courts have discretion to impose penalties within the statutory framework, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

10. Practical Considerations and Advice

Document or Record the Incident
While oral defamation relies on spoken words, gathering as much detail as possible—written statements from witnesses, any audio or video recordings if lawfully obtained—can strengthen the case.
Identify All Potential Witnesses
Witnesses who were present during the incident can corroborate the defamatory utterances. Their testimony is usually key to successful prosecution.
Consult Legal Counsel
For both complainants (victims) and defendants (accused), consulting an attorney familiar with criminal law is essential. Legal counsel can help ensure proper filing of the complaint, provide guidance on defenses, and navigate complexities in court proceedings.
Consider Amicable Settlement
Oral defamation cases can sometimes be settled amicably, especially if the parties are relatives, neighbors, or close associates. An apology, retraction, or clarification of the statements can lead to a peaceful resolution without lengthy court proceedings.
Respect Privacy and Dignity
As courts often regard defamation charges in light of free speech principles and the right to personal dignity, it is prudent to use respectful language and to avoid situations where quick-tempered utterances may escalate to legal disputes.

11. Conclusion

Oral defamation or slander, as governed by Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, remains a significant legal issue that protects an individual’s right to a good name and reputation against malicious and defamatory utterances. Whether the offense is treated as serious (grave slander) or light depends on the context, the nature of the utterance, and its impact on the offended party’s honor. The key elements of publication (i.e., speaking before a third party), malicious imputation, and identifiable victim must be shown for criminal liability to attach.

Philippine courts interpret these provisions with care, balancing the individual’s right to honor with the freedoms of speech and expression. When disputes arise, the best course typically involves gathering all relevant evidence, seeking proper legal advice, and, when possible, pursuing amicable solutions to preserve social harmony and prevent protracted litigation.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals facing actual or potential criminal or civil actions relating to slander are advised to consult a licensed attorney for guidance specific to their situation.