Third Party in Oral Defamation under Philippine Law
All There Is to Know in the Philippine Context

I. Introduction

Oral defamation—known in Philippine criminal law as slander—is primarily governed by Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Under this provision, anyone who, by oral utterances, makes imputations of a discreditable act or condition against another person and disseminates it in such a way that at least one other individual (a “third party”) hears or understands those remarks, may be held liable for the crime of oral defamation.

A key component in defamation cases—whether oral (slander) or written (libel)—is publication or communication of the defamatory statement to someone other than the person defamed. In oral defamation, this concept translates to the presence (or hearing) of a third party. This article provides a comprehensive discussion of how the role of the “third party” shapes, defines, and limits liability for oral defamation under Philippine law.

II. Defining Oral Defamation (Slander)

Under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code:

“Oral defamation or slander 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 oral defamation), otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Two Hundred pesos (P200).”

In simpler terms:

Oral defamation consists of an oral statement (spoken words).
This statement must impute a discreditable act or condition to another person.
The statement must be publicized in the sense that at least one other person—besides the speaker and the offended party—must hear or learn of it.

Without the participation or presence of a third party (i.e., if the statement was made privately to the offended party alone), defamation generally does not arise. The act of uttering defamatory words directly and only to the subject—without any third person to hear or understand—typically does not constitute slander.

III. The Role of the Third Party

Requirement of Publication
- Essence of “publication”: In defamation cases, “publication” is satisfied when the defamatory words are communicated to at least one person other than the one allegedly defamed.
- Rationale: The law punishes the offense because of its potential to harm an individual’s reputation in the estimation of society. If no third party hears or learns of the statement, the defamatory words remain a private matter between the speaker and the offended party—there is no reputational harm inflicted within the community.
Must the Third Party Actually Hear?
- Actual hearing vs. probability: Philippine jurisprudence generally holds that actual hearing or reception of the defamatory statement by a third party is required. Mere probability or a risk that someone might have heard may not suffice. If the statement was whispered in an unoccupied room and it is clear no one else heard, there would be no publication.
- Intent and the environment: Courts may consider the surrounding circumstances—Was the statement made aloud in a public setting? Were other individuals within earshot? If it can be reasonably inferred that a bystander or other person present heard or was meant to hear the utterance, then the element of publication is established.
Communication to the Third Party
- A frequently cited rule is that a remark exchanged only between the offender and the offended party—where neither intends for someone else to overhear—will not amount to defamation. However, if the speaker knowingly or negligently allows a third party to overhear or invites a third party to join a conversation containing the offending words, that satisfies the requirement of publication.

IV. Distinctions in Severity: Grave Oral Defamation vs. Simple Oral Defamation

Philippine jurisprudence divides oral defamation into two categories: grave (serious) oral defamation and simple oral defamation. The presence of a third party is common to both, but the seriousness of the remark and the context in which it is made distinguish the two in terms of penalties.

Grave Oral Defamation
- Involves statements that are particularly repugnant, insulting, or injurious to the victim’s reputation.
- Examples include direct imputations of serious crimes or vicious insults aimed at the victim’s honor in a public setting.
- Punishable by arresto mayor (in its maximum period) to prisión correccional (in its minimum period).
Simple Oral Defamation
- Less serious or insulting in nature.
- Punishable by arresto menor or a fine of up to Two Hundred Pesos (P200), reflecting the lower gravity assigned by law.

The presence of a third party (publication) is still essential in either category, but it is the nature, context, and language of the defamatory utterance that ultimately categorizes it as grave or simple.

V. Defenses and Exceptions Relating to Third Parties

No Third Party Heard the Words
- If the accused can prove that no one else heard or understood the alleged defamatory words aside from the offended party, they could argue the absence of the publication element, negating liability for slander.
Privileged Communication
- The doctrine of privileged communication (more commonly discussed in written defamation/libel cases) can sometimes arise in oral utterances as well—e.g., communications made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. When a communication is privileged, it is not deemed defamatory or, at minimum, not actionable under certain conditions.
- Even with a third party present, if the statement is made under circumstances covered by absolute or qualified privilege (such as legislative or judicial proceedings), it may be exempt from defamation liability. However, courts interpret such privileges strictly.
Consent of the Offended Party
- If the offended party consented to the publication or the presence of a third party, or specifically asked the accused to speak in front of a particular third party, that scenario may affect the court’s analysis of malicious intent. However, consent alone does not always absolve the speaker from liability if the statement is inherently malicious and remains defamatory.

VI. Illustrative Jurisprudence

While there are numerous appellate court and Supreme Court rulings illustrating the significance of the third party in oral defamation cases, the following points commonly surface in court decisions:

Requirement of Actual Hearing
- Courts reiterate that a defamation claim must show that a specific third person did hear the defamatory words. The outcome often hinges on testimonies of bystanders or the person claiming to have overheard the statement.
Context Matters
- Tone, timing, and setting: The Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that the serious or simple nature of slander depends not just on the words spoken, but also the tone used, the personal relations between the parties, and whether the utterance was made publicly with intent to humiliate.
Constructive Publication
- Occasionally, courts discuss whether it is sufficient that the speaker knew or should have known others were present and could hear. While defamation generally requires proof that a specific third party did in fact hear the statement, some decisions highlight that a defendant’s deliberate choice of a public venue might weigh against them as evidence of malicious intent and publication.

VII. Practical Implications

Evidence Gathering
- In oral defamation cases, corroboration is essential. The victim will typically present the testimony of witnesses (the “third party” or parties who heard the statement). Without such testimony, or at least credible circumstantial evidence that someone heard the utterance, the prosecution may fail to establish the publication element.
Potential for Civil Liability
- In addition to criminal prosecution, a slander case can give rise to a civil action for damages. The offended party may seek moral damages, exemplary damages, or nominal damages if the defamatory remark is proven in court.
Importance of Contextual Factors
- Determining whether oral defamation is “grave” or “simple” rests on contextual factors (e.g., the language used, the relationship between parties, the potential for public disgrace). These contextual details can significantly affect the penalties and civil damages awarded.
Public Utterances vs. Private Conversations
- Always consider the environment in which the words are spoken. An argument behind closed doors with no one else present generally does not amount to criminal slander. Meanwhile, a heated exchange in a crowded office, marketplace, or social gathering could be more likely to satisfy the element of publication.

VIII. Conclusion

In Philippine law on oral defamation (slander), the notion of a “third party” is crucial because it is tied to the core element of publication, which underpins the entire concept of defamation. The presence—or at least the hearing—of a statement by someone other than the offended party is what transforms an insult or accusation from a private matter into a public harm against one’s reputation.

Key takeaways include:

Publication requirement: Without a third party’s reception of the defamatory words, no slander exists.
Grave vs. simple: The severity of the language used and context of utterance determine the penalty, but the third party remains essential to the crime’s very existence.
Defenses: Absence of a third party’s actual knowledge, privileged communication, and consent may all be raised to negate or mitigate liability.
Practical considerations: The success or failure of an oral defamation charge often hinges on witness testimony or other evidence proving that a specific third person heard the offending words.

Understanding the role of the third party is therefore indispensable for both complainants and accused persons in oral defamation cases. Whether you are asserting or defending against a claim of oral defamation in the Philippines, the fulcrum of your case will likely hinge on proving (or disproving) that the defamatory words were, in fact, heard or understood by someone other than the complainant.