Below is a comprehensive discussion of the legal principles and considerations surrounding slander (oral defamation) in the Philippines when someone is called “pokpok.” Although this information aims to be accurate and up-to-date, please note that it is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns, it is always best to consult a licensed attorney.

1. Terminology and Overview

Slander (Oral Defamation): Under Philippine law, defamation generally refers to the act of injuring another’s reputation by imputing a crime, vice, defect, or any act/omission that can dishonor, discredit, or cause contempt. When done orally, defamation is commonly referred to as “slander.”
Calling Someone “Pokpok”: In common Filipino usage, “pokpok” is a pejorative term implying that a person is a prostitute or is promiscuous. Because it imputes a negative characterization of someone’s morality and sexual behavior, calling another person “pokpok” may be defamatory if it is false and made with malice. Whether it qualifies as serious or slight oral defamation depends on multiple factors discussed below.

2. Legal Basis: The Revised Penal Code (RPC)

The Philippines’ Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides the statutory provisions on defamation:

Article 353 (Definition of Libel)
Defines libel as 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...” When this imputation is made orally, it is typically referred to as slander or oral defamation.
Article 358 (Slander)
Specifically covers oral defamation. It states that slander (oral defamation) is committed by any person who “shall utter defamatory words which are injurious to the reputation” of another person.
Classification:
- Serious (Grave) Oral Defamation: Generally punished more severely when the words used are of a serious nature or when there is a public and deliberate intention to cause significant harm to a person’s reputation.
- Slight Oral Defamation: Punished less severely when the defamatory statements are not as gravely offensive or were uttered in the heat of anger, or when circumstances show that the defamatory words were more of a casual outburst than a deliberate act to harm.

3. Elements of Oral Defamation

To constitute oral defamation, the following elements typically must be present:

Imputation of a Discreditable Act or Condition
- The statement must impute something dishonorable or humiliating. Calling someone “pokpok” imputes immorality or promiscuity, which may qualify as a discreditable act.
Publication (Communication to a Third Party)
- The statement must be heard or perceived by someone else aside from the person being defamed. If it is a private conversation with no other person present (and no possibility of it being overheard), it may not constitute “publication.”
Identity of the Person Defamed
- The offended party must be identifiable—directly named or described in such a way that others know who is being referred to.
Malice
- Malice is presumed in every defamatory statement under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, except in very specific cases of qualified privileged communication. The presumption of malice means that, once the defamatory statement is proven, the burden typically shifts to the defendant to show good intentions or any lawful motive (such as truth told in good faith).

4. Serious Versus Slight Oral Defamation

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has clarified the distinction between serious (or grave) oral defamation and slight oral defamation primarily based on:

Gravity or Seriousness of the Imputation
- How insulting or injurious were the words used?
- Was the term “pokpok” used in a highly public and offensive manner?
Context in Which the Words Were Uttered
- Were the words uttered repeatedly, in the presence of many people, or with deliberate intent to publicly shame and degrade the offended party?
- Were they uttered casually in the heat of an argument, without a persistent intention to defame?
Social Standing of the Parties
- Sometimes, the position or stature of both parties in their community can impact whether the court views the words as more or less harmful.
Venue or Occasion
- Public gatherings, social media (if orally broadcast or through real-time video features), or other occasions where statements are widely heard may strengthen the case for serious defamation.

If a court deems the defamation to be serious, it carries a higher penalty; if it is deemed slight, the penalty is lower.

5. Penalties

5.1 Penalties Under the Revised Penal Code

Serious Oral Defamation (Grave Slander)
Punished under Article 358 of the RPC, with a penalty typically ranging from arresto mayor (imprisonment of one month and one day to six months) to prisión correccional (six months and one day up to six years) in its minimum period, depending on aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Slight Oral Defamation
Punished with arresto menor (imprisonment of one day to thirty days) or a fine (which can vary, but often does not exceed a few thousand pesos), depending on the court’s discretion and the circumstances.

5.2 Civil Liability for Damages

In addition to the criminal aspect, a person found guilty of defamation can also be held civilly liable under Articles 19, 20, and 26 of the Civil Code for damages caused by the defamatory statements.

Moral damages: Compensation for mental anguish, wounded feelings, and social humiliation.
Nominal damages: Awarded if the harm is minimal but still recognized.
Exemplary damages: May be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton, reckless manner.

6. Defenses Against Defamation Charges

Truth of the Imputation (Justification)
- Under Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, proof of truth is a valid defense only if the imputation is proven true, and the statement was made with good motives and justifiable ends. If the accused can show that the offended party is indeed a prostitute (and the statements were made without malice or in furtherance of a lawful purpose), it may negate criminal liability.
- However, calling someone “pokpok” with mere suspicion or rumor, without definitive proof, will not absolve liability and is likely to strengthen the finding of malice.
Lack of Publication
- If the statements were not communicated to a third party, no defamation occurs. For instance, if a heated argument happens privately with no one else present and no possibility of being overheard, it might fail the “publication” requirement.
Privileged Communication
- Although primarily applicable in written defamation cases, certain communications are considered “privileged” (e.g., statements made in official proceedings, legislative sessions, or judicial proceedings). However, these exceptions rarely extend to casual name-calling in personal disputes.
Good Faith or Fair Comment on Matters of Public Interest
- Typically invoked in media cases or commentary on public figures. Unless the person labeled as “pokpok” is a public figure and the matter pertains to a legitimate public concern—which is unlikely—this defense will rarely apply.

7. Practical Considerations in Filing a Case

Evidence Collection
- Identify witnesses who heard the defamatory statement.
- Secure any audio or video recordings if available (e.g., in-person recordings, live streams, or other media).
Filing the Complaint
- Criminal complaints for oral defamation are typically filed with the local prosecutor’s office (Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor).
- The prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation to determine if there is probable cause to charge the accused in court.
Prescriptive Period
- Under the Revised Penal Code, slander generally prescribes (expires) in a relatively short timeframe—often six months for slight oral defamation and one year for serious oral defamation from the date the offense was committed. It is crucial to file the complaint promptly.
Possibility of Amicable Settlement
- Many defamation cases are settled out of court through mediation or direct compromise, where an apology or retraction, plus possible monetary settlement, is agreed upon by the parties.

8. Illustrative Points from Jurisprudence

While specific case names are extensive, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the following principles in deciding oral defamation cases:

The nature of the words, the circumstances of their utterance, and the social standing of the offended party and the accused are evaluated to determine whether the defamation is serious or slight.
Malice is generally presumed; the burden shifts to the defendant to prove good faith and lack of malicious intent.
If an accusation of prostitution (or any immoral activity) is unjustified and untrue, courts tend to hold the accused liable for defamation, given the serious impact such an imputation has on the offended party’s reputation.

9. Conclusion

Calling someone “pokpok” in the Philippines can indeed constitute slander (oral defamation), as it imputes a discreditable act—namely, prostitution or promiscuity. If the utterance is malicious, false, and heard by at least one other person, it may subject the speaker to criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code and possible civil liability for damages.

Whether the defamation is deemed serious or slight will depend on factors such as the gravity of the insult, the presence (or number) of witnesses, the manner in which the statement was delivered, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Additionally, because malice is presumed once defamation is established, the accused bears the burden of proving a lawful defense—such as truth (with good motives) or lack of publication.

Any person who believes they have been defamed or is accused of defamation should seek professional legal counsel. Proper and timely legal advice is critical due to the prescriptive periods, the need to gather evidence, and the often complex nuances of defamation proceedings in the Philippines.

Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes and should not be taken as legal advice. Laws and regulations may change, and court interpretations can vary depending on the specific facts of each case. Always consult a qualified lawyer for guidance on particular legal issues or disputes.