DEFAMATION

Libel written
Slander oral; verbal utterances
Slander by deed any which is not written or oral

Defamation proper generic term for libel because it

includes all attacks against honor and embraces all kinds of
insult

Examples:

Deaf Mute Sign Language (Defamatory Words)

SLANDER BY DEED (actions which does not fall under
any other type of defamation)
Middle Finger (FU act) action that represents
something not spoken nor written

Reason why defamation is punished

-

Elements of Defamation
1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance
2. The imputation must be made publicly
3. It must be malicious
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is dead
5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of the person defamed
LIBEL
-

HISTORY:
-

Defined in ART. 353 of Revised Penal Code (RPC)

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 the dishonour, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of someone who is dead.
- Dishonor disgrace, shame, ignominy
- Discredit loss of credit or reputation;
disesteem
- Contempt state of being despised

Enjoyment of a private reputation as much as a

constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty &
property one of the rights necessary to human
society that underlie the whole scheme of civilization
The law recognizes value of such reputation and
imposes upon him who attacks it, by slanderous
words/libelous publication the liability to make full
compensation for the damages done
Evil that it seeks to punish is the tendency to injure the
person defamed regardless of its effect on the public
Purpose: encourage victims to civil suit instead of
taking the law into their own hands

PROVISIONS OF THE SPANISH PENAL CODE on

CALUMNY AND INSULT
Used to penalize attacks of honor
Act. No 277
- Special law on libel after American
conquest, took effect in 1901
Absorbed libel, calumny, and insult as it deals w/ all
kinds of attack against honor & reputation
SEDITIOUS LIBEL punished under Art. 142 under
national security not Art. 353

CRIMINAL & CIVIL ASPECTS OF LIBEL LAW

A person prosecuted or guilty of libel suffers:
-

Imprisonment (criminal liability)

Required to pay a fine (civil liability

Or both

defamations contained therein to the same

extent as if he were the author

ART. 30 & ART 33 of CIVIL CODE

-

Legal bases in a civil action for damages as a result of

allegedly defamatory remarks
ART. 30 authorizes a separate civil action to
recover civil liability arising from a criminal
offense
ART. 33 provides that injured party may bring
a separate civil action for damages in cases of
defamation, fraud and physical injuries

(Further explained in p. 299)

HOW LIBEL IS COMMITTED AND WHO ARE THE PEOPLE

RESPONSIBLE
ART. 355 of the Revised Penal Code
-

Libel may be committed by means of:

Writing
Printing
Lithography
Engraving
Radio
Phonograph
Painting
Theatrical exhibition
Cinematographic exhibition
Any similar means

ART. 360 of the Revised Penal Code

-

Prescribes persons responsible for libel

Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause
the publication or exhibition of any defamation
in writing or by similar means, shall be
responsible for the same
Author/editor of a book or pamphlet, editor/
business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine/serial publication responsible for

LAWS APPLIED TO CASES

ART. 353 of the Revised Penal Code
Elements of Defamation:

1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a

vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance.
Best example:
People v. Carmen Sario
-

Complainant was called a witch and sorceress, an

imputation to her vice, condition or status that is
dishonorable and contemptible since it accuses her of
having employed black art; of possessing supernatural
power by reason of a covenant with evil spirits; and of
having trafficked with the devil also she was attributed
of the death of 3 people, an imputation of a crime

There must be a defamatory imputation

The imputation may cover:
a. Crime allegedly committed by the offended party
b. Vice or defect, real or imaginary, of the offended party;
or
c. Any act, omission, condition, status of, or circumstance
relating to, the offended party
Test of defamatory character of the words used
-

Charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to

induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the
person against whom they were uttered was guilty of
certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach his

honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to

public ridicule

Status ex. Anak sa labas

Circumstance ex. Wala kang pera

The meaning of the writer is immaterial

-

It is not the intention of the writer or speaker or the

understanding of the plaintiff or of any hearer or
reader by which the actionable quality of words is to
be determined, BUT the meaning that the words in fact
conveyed on the minds of persons of reasonable
understanding, discretion and candor, taking into
consideration the surrounding circumstances which
were known to the hearer or reader
Alleged libellous article must be construed as a whole

Imputation of a criminal act

-

Imputation of a crime may be implied from the acts

and statements of the accused

Exceptions:
Imputation of criminal intention not
libelous
- Intent to commit a crime is not violation
of the law. More so if it is a mere
assertion/ expression of opinion to the
future conduct of another
An expression of opinion by one affected
by the act of another and based on actual
fact is not libelous

2. That the imputation must be made publicly.

PUBLICATION
-

Defamatory material is communicated to a 3 rd person:

person other than the person to whom the defamatory
statement refers
Delivering the article to the typesetter is
sufficient publication
Sending a letter in a sealed envelope through
messenger is NOT publication
Writing a letter to another person other than the
person defamed is sufficient to constitute
publication
There is publication of defamatory letter
not shown to be sealed when sent to
addressee
If there is no evidence that the letter is sealed,
there is publication
There is no crime if the defamatory
imputation is not published
- communication of libelous matter to the
person defamed alone does not amount
to publication, for that cannot injure his
reputation

IMPUTATION means ACCUSATION

Crime ex. Murder; Swindler Mamamatay tao ka!
Vice lascivious and immoral habits; ex. Babaero,
lasinggero
Defect disability, may sira, may kulang; ex. Deaf,
Mute, Impotent
Act may ginawa ka talaga; ex. Tumae ka sa kanto
Omission may hindi ka ginawa
Condition -

3. That it must be malicious.

MALICE
Term used to indicate the fact that offender is
prompted by personal ill-will or spite and
speaks not in response to duty, but merely to
injure the reputation of the person
defamed (US vs. Canete, 38 Phil. 253)

2 types of Malice:

1. MALICE IN FACT
- Shown by proof of ill-will, hatred or purpose to injure
- Expressed malice
2. MALICE IN LAW
- Presumed from a defamatory imputation
- Proof of malice is not required because it is presumed
to exist from the defamatory imputation (Art. 354, 1 st
paragraph)
- Presumption of malice in does not arise in 2 cases of
privileged communication:
a. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral,
social duty (Art. 354, No. 1)
b. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without
any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
of any other act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions (Art. 354, No. 2)
-

Plaintiff or prosecution must prove malice in fact

whenever the defamatory imputation appears in a
privileged communication.
Malice in law not inconsistent with honest or laudible
purpose so even if publication is injurious, the
presumption of malice disappears upon proof of
good intention and justifiable motive.
But when malice in fact is present, justifiable
motives cannot exist and imputations become
actionable
There is no libel in interchange of captions of pictures
made by mistake, because malice is absent

4. That the imputation must be directed at a

natural of juridical person, or one who is dead.
- Identification of the offended party is required

Not sufficient that the offended party recognized

himself as person attacked/defamed; it must be shown
that at least a 3rd person could identify him as the
object of libelous publication
(Kunkle vs. Cablenews American)
Prosecution is permitted to prove by evidence that the
vague imputation refers to the complainant if writing
doesnt mention libeled party by name (People vs.
Silvela)
Essential that the victim be identifiable but not
necessarily be named to maintain libel suit
It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion
is apparent or if the publication contains matters
of description or reference to facts and
circumstances from which others reading the
article may know the plaintiff was intended, or if
he is pointed out by extraneous circumstances
so that person knowing him could and did
understand that he was the person referred to
BUT, when article is impersonal on its face and
interpretation of its language does not single
out individuals, this requisite of offense of libel
does not exist
Defamatory statements directed at a class or a
group of persons in general language are not
actionable by individuals composing the class or
group unless the statements are sweeping
Libel published in different parts may be
taken
together
to
establish
the
identification of the offended party
Innuendo clause in the indictment/ other
pleading containing an averment which is
explanatory of some preceding word/statement
- Office of an innuendo: defines defamatory
meaning which the plaintiff set on the
words , to show how they came to have
that meaning, and also to show how they
relate to the plaintiff

 Malice in law is presumed from very

defamatory imputation
- The law presumes that the defendants
imputation is malicious
- Even if the defamatory statement is true,
the presumption of malice still exists, if
no good intention and justifiable
motive is shown
Prosecution must prove malice in fact to
convict the accused on a charge of libel
involving a privileged communication

5. That the imputation must tend to cause

dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the person
defamed.
PURPOSE MUST BE TO INJURE THE REPUTATION OF
THE OFFENDED PARTY
-

If the matter charged libelous is only an incident in an

act which has another objective, the crime is not libel.
Meaning of:
a. Dishonor disgrace, shame, ignominy
b. Discredit loss of credit or reputation; disesteem
c. Contempt state of being despised of a natural or
juridical person
d. to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

If the utterance is made but once against a family of lawyers,

designated by their common surname, not separately
mentioned, there is only one offense.
ARTICLE
354.
Requirement
of
publication;
Presumption of Malice; Privileged Communication
Every defamatory imputation is presumed
to be malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention and justifiable motive for
making it is shown, except in the 2 cases of
privileged communications:
- A private communication made by any
person to another in the performance of
any legal, moral or social duty
- A fair and true report, made in good
faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings, which are not
of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report, or speech delivered in
said proceeding, or of any other act
performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
I.

Rationale for Privileged Communication; Concept

Doctrine of Privilege (US vs. Bustos, Justice Malcolm

sketched)
2 kinds of privileged communications:
1. Absolute
Not actionable even if its author has acted
in bad faith
Includes:
1. Statements made by members of Congress in
the discharge of their functions such,
2. Official communications made by public
officers in the performance of their duties
3. Allegations or statements made by the
parties or their counsel in their pleadings or
motions or during the hearing of judicial
proceedings
4. Answers given by witnesses in reply to
questions propounded to them provided that
said allegations or statements are relevant to
the issues
5. Answers are responsive/pertinent to the
questions propounded to said witnesses
- narrow, practically limited to legislative and judicial
proceedings and other acts of the state, communications

made in discharge of a duty under express authority of law,

or heads of executive departments of state, matters
involving military affairs
2. Conditional / Qualified
Those
which
although
containing
defamatory
imputations, would not be actionable unless made with
malice or bad faith
there is malice when defamer has been prompted by ill
will or spite and speaks not in response to duty, but
merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed
Lost by proof of malice

*That the statement is a privileged communication is a

matter of defense must be established by the accused
-

Par. No. 1, Article 354

Private communication made by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral or social duty
-

it is the duty and right of a citizen to make a complaint

of any misconduct of any officials

The communication need not be in private document

-

it may also be in a public document like an affidavit

Requisites of privileged communication

1. That the person who made the communication had a
legal, moral or social duty to make the communication,
or at least he had an interest to be upheld
2. That the communication is addressed to an officer or a
board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the
matter
3. That the statements in the communication are made in
good faith without malice

*The privileged character simply does away with the

presumption of malice

Defense of a privileged communication will be rejected

if it is shown by the prosecution or the plaintiff that
Defendant acted with malice in fact
- The existence of malice in fact may be
shown by extrinsic evidence that the
defendant bore a grudge against the
offended party or there was a rivalry or illfeeling between them
There is no reasonable ground for believing the
charge to be true
- Defendant
admitted
that
he
had
personally made no investigation with
reference to the truth of many of the
statements
- BUT probable cause for belief in the truth
of the matter charged is sufficient
mantle of privilege may still cover the
mistake

Par. No. 2, Article 354

Fair and true report of official proceedings
In order that the publication of a report of an official
proceeding may be considered privileged, the following
conditions must exist:
-

*Applying to the wrong person due to honest mistake does

not take the case out of the privilege
*Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith

The rule is that a communication loses its privileged

character and is actionable on a proof of actual malice

That the fair and true report of a judicial, legislative or

other official proceedings which are not of confidential
nature , or of a statement, report or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a
public officer in the exercise of his functions
That it is made in good faith
That it is without any comments or remarks

(pp. 940 947)

ART. 355. Libel means by writing or similar means

shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods [from six months and one day to six years]
or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in
addition to the civil action which may be brought by the
offended party
*Defamation through amplifier is not libel, but
oral defamation
*Defamation made in the television program is
libel
ART. 356 Threatening to publish and offer to prevent
such publication for a compensation
The penalty of arresto mayor [from one month and one day
to six months] or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos or both shall
be imposed upon any person who threatens another to
publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse,
child, or other members of the family of the latter or
upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication
of such libel for a compensation or money
consideration.
BLACKMAIL
-

Unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation

or exposure. Two words are expressive of the crime
hush money
Felonies where blackmail is possible:
- Light threats (ART. 283)
- Threatening to publish, or offering to
prevent the publication of, a libel for
compensation

ART. 357 Prohibited publication of acts referred to in

the course of official proceedings
The penalty of arresto mayor [from one month and one day
to six months] or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos or both shall

be imposed upon any reporter, editor, or manager of a

newspaper, daily, or magazine, who shall publish facts
connected with the private life of another and offensive to
the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though
said publication be made in connection with or under the
pretext that it is necessary in the narration of judicial or
administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been
mentioned.
GAG LAW

Elements:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor, or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine
2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life
of another
3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
*Prohibition applies even if the facts are involved in official
proceedings
Extent of application of gag law
ART. 357 constitutes GAG LAW
-

Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery,

divorce, issues about legitimacy of children, etc. will
necessarily be barred from publication.

Two things to constitute a violation of the prohibition:

1. That the article contains facts concerned with the
private life of an individual
2. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue
and reputation of the said person

Source of news report may not be revealed unless the

court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the State

ART.358 SLANDER Oral defamation shall be punished by

arresto mayor [from one month and one day to six months]
in its maximum period to prision correccional [from 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 [from one day to thirty days] or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos
Slander oral defamation
2 kinds of Slander:
1. Simple Slander
- Accusation that the offended party has been
living successively with several men uttered
before several persons (when intended to
correct an improper conduct of the offended
party, a kin of the accused)
- Calling a person gangster
- Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger
with some provocation on the part if the
offended party
- Defamation uttered in political meeting
2. Grave Slander, when it is of a serious and insulting
nature
**Gravity of slander depends on the following: (aside
from expressions used)
a. Personal relations of the accused and the offended
party
b. Circumstances surrounding the case
c. Social standing and position of offended party
(Examples on p. 953- 954)
** SLANDER NEED NOT BE HEARD BY OFFENDED PARTY

ART. 359 Slander by deed The penalty of arresto mayor

[from one month and one day to six months] in its maximum
period to prision correccional [from six months and one day
to six years] in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200
to 1,000 pesos. If said act is not of serious nature, the
penalty shall be arresto menor [from one day to thirty days]
or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos
Slander by deed crime against honor which is committed
by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon another person
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender performs any act not included in any other
crime against honor (not written nor oral)
2. Such act is performed in the presence of person or
persons
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon
the offended party
2 kinds:
1. Simple slander by deed
2. Grave slander by deed which is of serious nature
- Depends on the social standing of the offended
party, the circumstances under which the act
was committed, the occasion, etc.
** Slander by deed refers to the performance of an
act, not use of words
-

Slapping the face of another is slander by deed

if the intention of the accused is to cause shame
and humiliation

*Fighting the offended party with intention to insult

him is slander by deed
Determination of seriousness of Slander by Deed

No fixed standard in determining whether it is serious

or not
Courts have sufficient discretion to determine the
same, basing the finding on the attendant
circumstances and matters relevant thereto

Slander by deed
distinguished
-

and

acts

of

lasciviousness,

Basta if it was committed to cast dishonor, discredit or

contempt, slander by deed yun.

Slander by deed and maltreatment, distinguished

-

The nature and effects of maltreatment determine the

crime committed
If the offended party suffered from shame or
humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it is slander
by deed

Unjust Vexation,
distinguished

Slander,

Act

of

Lasciviousness,

Common Denominator: Irritation or Annoyance

-

Unjust Vexation
Anything that annoys or irritates another
without justification
If in addition to the irritation/ annoyance, there was
attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt, the
offense would be Slander by Deed.
If in addition to annoyance or irritation, there was
present any of the circumstance in Art. 335 of the code
(rape - force intimidation, deprivation of reason,
rendering offended party unconscious, if offended
party was under 12 years of age together with lewd
designs) crime would be Act of Lasciviousness

Slander by deed; when offended partys complaint not

necessary
-

Last paragraph of Article 360 of Revised Penal Code:

Only defamation imputing crimes which may not be

prosecuted de oficio under Article 344 (adultery,

concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness) must be prosecuted upon complaint by
the offended party
Moral damages awarded
jurisdiction of the court

do

not

determine

the

ART 360. Persons responsible Any person who shall

publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
responsible for the same.
Persons responsible for libel:
1. The person who publishes, exhibits, or causes the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing
or similar means
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine or serial publication
4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a
libellous article with his consent and all other persons
who in any way participate in or have connection with
its publication
The person who publishes libellous letter written by
the offended party is liable
-

The prime requisite of libel is not necessarily the

composing of the article but the publishing of it.

Liability of the editor is the same as that of the author

-

As if he were the author thereof

Municipal Court of a municipality cannot conduct

preliminary investigation of criminal action for written
defamation
-

Shall be conducted by the provincial/city fiscal of

province or city; or by municipal (city) court of the city

or capital of the province where the actions may be

instituted
Venue of criminal and civil action for damages in
cases of written defamations

Offended party must file complaint for defamation

imputing a crime which cannot be prosecuted de
oficio
-

Shall be files simultaneously or separately with the court of

first instance of province or city:
-

Where the libellous article is printed and first

published
Where any of the offended parties actually resides at
the time of the commission of the offense

Libel imputing a vice or defect, not being an

imputation of a crime, is always prosecuted upon
information signed and filed by the fiscal
-

Summary:
1. Whether the offended party is a public official or
private person, the criminal action may be files in the
Court of First Instance of the province or city where
the libellous article is printed and first published
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the
criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province where he actually resided at
the time of the commission of the offense
3. If the offended party is a public official holding office,
the action may be files in the Court of First Instance of
the province or city where he held office at the time of
the commission of the offense
Civil and Criminal actions must be filed in the same
court
-

The civil action shall be files in the same court where

the criminal action is filed, vice versa

Exclusive jurisdiction of the court

-

The court where the criminal or civil action for

damages is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the
exclusion of other courts

Crimes which may not be prosecuted de oficio

adultery; concubinage; rape; seduction; abduction;
acts of lasciviousness (Art. 344)

If it does involve the imputation of a crime, it may be

prosecuted de oficio

Damages in defamation
-

Actual damages need not to be proved, at least where

the publication is libellous per se, or when the amount
of the award is more or less nominal
An action for exemplary damages in libel may be
awarded if the action is based on quasi-delict

No remedy for damages for slander or libel in case of

ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

Art. 361. Proof of truth In every criminal prosecution for

libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it
appears that the matter charged as libellous is true, and,
moreover, that it was published with good motives and for
justifiable ends, the defendant shall be acquitted.
Proof of truth of an imputation of an act or omission not
constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the
imputation shall have been made against Government
employees with respect to the facts related to the
discharge of their duties In such cases if the defendant
proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be
acquitted
Proof of truth is admissible in any of the following:

When the act or omission imputed constitutes a

crime regardless of whether the offended party is a
private individual or public official
When the offended party is a government
employee, even if the act or omission does not
constitute a crime, provided that it is related to the
discharge if his official duties.

Proof of truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest

upon mere hearsays, rumors or suspicion.
It must rest upon positive, direct evidence upon which a
definite finding may be made by the Court.
BUT probable cause for belief in the truth of the
statement is sufficient

ART. 362. Libelous Remarks Libelous remarks or

comments connected with the matter privileged under the
provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not
exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor
of a newspaper from criminal liability
Libelous remarks or comments on matters privileged,
if made with malice in fact, do not exempt the author
and the editor
Liability of newspaper reporter for distorting facts
connected with official proceedings
-

Three Requisites of Defense in Defamation:

1. If it appears that the matter charged as libellous is
true*
2. It was published with good motives
3. And for justifiable end

Retraction may mitigate damages

-

Retraction should contain an admission of the falsity

of the libellous publication and evince a desire to
repair the wrong occasioned thereby

That the publication of the article was an honest

mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to
mitigate the damages where the article is libellous per
se

Reporter must publish the whole case and not merely

state a conclusion he himself draws from the evidence
If author or editor of a publication distorts, mutilates or
discolors the official proceedings reported by him, or
add comments thereon to cast aspersion on the
character of the parties concerned, he is GUILTY OF
LIBEL, notwithstanding the fact that the defamatory
matter is published in connection with a privileged
matter