Slander and Online Defamation Laws in the Philippines

Disclaimer: The following information is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance on your situation, please consult a licensed attorney in the Philippines.

I. Introduction

Defamation laws in the Philippines have evolved over time under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and subsequent legislation, including the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175). Understanding slander (oral defamation) and online defamation (cyber libel) is critical given the growing use of social media, digital communication platforms, and the increasing instances of reputational harm that occur in online environments.

This article provides an overview of:

  1. The legal definitions and elements of slander and libel under Philippine law.
  2. The specific provisions concerning online defamation under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
  3. The penalties, defenses, and remedies available to victims and accused persons.
  4. Notable jurisprudence and procedural guidelines that shape the implementation of defamation laws.

II. Definition of Defamation in Philippine Law

A. What is Defamation?

Defamation, broadly, is any wrongful and unprivileged act or statement that injures a person’s reputation. Under Philippine law, defamation is categorized into:

  1. Libel – Defamation through written or similarly permanent forms of expression (e.g., print, television broadcasts, social media posts).
  2. Slander – Defamation through spoken words or transitory forms of expression.

B. Relevant Articles of the Revised Penal Code

  1. Article 353 (Definition of Libel)

    “A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person...”
    This definition equally guides the interpretation of oral defamation (slander), with necessary modifications.

  2. Article 358 (Slander or Oral Defamation)

    “Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor (imprisonment of one month and one day to six months) in its maximum period to prisión correccional (six months and one day to six years) in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto menor (one day to thirty days) or a fine…”

  3. Article 359 (Slander by Deed)
    In instances where the defamation is conveyed through acts (gestures or physical actions) rather than words alone but still results in a similar kind of reputational damage.

C. Types of Defamation

  1. Simple Slander (Light Oral Defamation)

    • Punished with arresto menor or a fine.
    • Examples: Casual insulting words said in the heat of the moment that do not necessarily impute a serious crime, vice, or defect.

  2. Serious Slander (Grave Oral Defamation)

    • Punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period.
    • Examples: Imputation of serious crimes (e.g., “He is a thief,” “She committed adultery.”) or statements that gravely injure someone’s standing in the community.

III. Elements of Defamation

For a successful criminal or civil action for defamation—whether slander (oral) or libel (written/online)—the following elements must be present:

  1. Imputation of a discreditable act or condition – The accused must make a statement that imputes a crime, vice, defect, or any act that may harm a person’s reputation.
  2. Publication/Communication to a Third Party – The defamatory statement must be made known to someone other than the person defamed.
  3. Identity of the Person Defamed – The person to whom the statement refers must be identifiable, directly or indirectly.
  4. Malice – A presumption of malice typically arises from the defamatory nature of the statement, but malice may be proven explicitly in some cases.

IV. Malice in Defamation

A. Presumed Malice

Under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious unless the defendant shows that:

  1. It is a private communication made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty; or
  2. It is a fair and true report, made in good faith, of a judicial, legislative, or other official proceeding which is not confidential in nature.

B. Actual Malice

Even if the statement is about a public figure or involves a matter of public interest, the complainant may still prove actual malice (i.e., that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth).

V. Cyber Libel and Online Defamation

A. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA No. 10175)

Enacted in 2012, Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act) criminalizes several computer-related offenses, including online libel. Specifically:

  1. Section 4(c)(4) of the Act punishes libel “committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”

  2. While the law references Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code for libel, it increases the penalty one degree higher when committed online, thereby making cyber libel potentially more severe than traditional libel.

B. Supreme Court Ruling in Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014)

In a landmark case (Disini v. Secretary of Justice), the Supreme Court held:

  1. The same elements of libel under Article 353 of the RPC apply to online libel.
  2. The increase in penalty does not violate constitutional rights per se.
  3. Only the original author of the defamatory statement may be held criminally liable. Individuals who simply receive, like, or share the content without further remarks typically do not incur liability, unless they add comments that become defamatory in themselves.

C. Continuing Publication Online

Another aspect arising from online content is whether each “view” or “share” reopens the prescriptive period (statute of limitations). Current jurisprudence generally treats the single publication rule as applying to online posts, meaning the prescriptive period typically starts from the first posting. However, if the material is republished or significantly revised, a new prescriptive period may be triggered.

VI. Penalties for Defamation

A. Criminal Penalties

  • Oral Defamation (Slander)

    • Simple/Light Slander: Arresto menor (one day to 30 days) or a fine.
    • Serious/Grave Slander: Arresto mayor in its maximum period (up to six months) to prisión correccional in its minimum period (six months and one day to two years and four months).

  • Libel (Under the Revised Penal Code)

    • Punishable by prisión correccional in its minimum to medium periods (six months and one day to four years and two months) or a fine, or both.

  • Cyber Libel

    • Penalty is one degree higher than traditional libel, which can mean up to six years to eight years of imprisonment, depending on the court’s determination.
    • Fines may also be imposed, and in many cases, courts give preference to a fine over imprisonment, although this can vary on a case-by-case basis.

B. Civil Liability

Apart from criminal sanctions, the aggrieved party may claim damages under the Civil Code (Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, and 32). These damages can include:

  • Moral Damages – For mental anguish, social humiliation, or serious anxiety.
  • Nominal Damages – In cases where no substantial harm is proven, but the right to reputation has been violated.
  • Exemplary or Punitive Damages – If the act was committed in a wanton, fraudulent, or oppressive manner.

VII. Defenses Against Defamation Charges

  1. Truth (In Matters of Public Interest and Fair Comment)

    • Under Article 361 of the RPC, proving the truth of the allegation, along with the absence of malice and the presence of good intention and justifiable motive, can exonerate the defendant.
    • This commonly applies to journalists, media personalities, or any person making a fair comment about public officers or public figures in the interest of public discourse.

  2. Privilege

    • Absolute Privilege: Very limited in Philippine law, typically applies to statements made in legislative or judicial proceedings.
    • Qualified Privilege: Applies to private communications in good faith (e.g., employer giving truthful references about a former employee).

  3. Lack of Publication

    • If the allegedly defamatory statement was not communicated to a third person, the action for defamation fails.

  4. Lack of Identifiability

    • If the complainant cannot prove they were the subject of the defamatory statements.

  5. Absence of Malice

    • Demonstrating that statements were made without ill will or reckless disregard for the truth can be a valid defense. This typically requires strong evidence that the publication was done in good faith and with justifiable motives.

VIII. Relevant Jurisprudence

  1. Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014)

    • Clarified the constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 10175, including online libel.
    • Emphasized the single-publication rule and liability primarily for original authors.

  2. Babayen-on v. Navarrete (G.R. No. 193113, 2014)

    • Discussed the presumption of malice in defamation cases and the requisites for establishing actual malice.

  3. Tulfo v. People of the Philippines

    • Addressed fair reporting privilege and reiterated that truth is not an absolute defense unless accompanied by good motives and justifiable ends.

IX. Filing Procedures and Prescriptive Periods

  1. Criminal Complaint

    • For criminal libel or slander, the offended party may file a complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor. A preliminary investigation will determine probable cause.

  2. Civil Action

    • Can be filed independently or in conjunction with the criminal case to claim damages.

  3. Prescriptive Period

    • Traditional Libel: Must generally be filed within one (1) year from the date of publication.
    • Online Libel: Also follows the one-year prescriptive period, starting from the first posting or publication. Re-posting or re-publication may reset the clock if it constitutes a separate defamatory act.

X. Practical Considerations

  1. Social Media Etiquette

    • With the prevalence of digital communication, statements made on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, or other platforms can quickly become actionable for cyber libel.
    • Users should always verify facts, consider the consequences of posting potentially damaging statements, and avoid careless name-calling or accusations.

  2. Public Figures vs. Private Individuals

    • Public figures (politicians, celebrities) have a slightly higher burden to prove actual malice for defamatory statements.
    • Private individuals typically only need to show the defamatory statement and the presumption of malice applies.

  3. Employer Liability

    • Employers may be held vicariously liable for defamatory content issued under official channels or by employees in the course of their job duties.

  4. Mitigation of Liability

    • Immediate retraction or apology can sometimes mitigate damages or show good faith. However, the acceptance of an apology typically depends on the complainant and the court’s assessment.

XI. Conclusion

Defamation law in the Philippines protects an individual’s reputation from wrongful and harmful statements, whether spoken, written, or posted online. Slander (oral defamation) and libel (written or broadcast defamation) are punishable under the Revised Penal Code, with added nuances under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for digital platforms.

Individuals engaging in public discourse—online or offline—should be mindful of the potential legal consequences of their words. Conversely, those who believe they have been defamed should understand their rights to file criminal and/or civil actions, the elements they need to prove, and the defenses that may be raised.

Staying informed about how the courts interpret defamation, the defenses available, and recent jurisprudential developments is crucial for anyone navigating issues of slander, libel, and online defamation in the Philippines. For specific cases or controversies, parties are strongly advised to consult a qualified attorney who can provide legal advice tailored to their circumstances.

References & Further Reading:

  • Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No. 3815), as amended.
  • Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).
  • Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014.
  • Philippine Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386).
  • Relevant Supreme Court decisions on defamation, libel, and cyber libel.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login