Title Thirteen

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

Chapter One. Libel
Section One. Definition, forms and punishment
of this crime
Article 353. Libel
Article 354. Requirement for publicity
Article 355. Libel by means of writings or
similar means
Article356. Threatening to publish and offer
to present
such
publication
for
a
compensation
Article 357. Prohibited publication of acts
referred to in the course of official
proceedings
Article 358. Slander
Article 359. Slander by deed
Section Two. General Provisions
Article 360. Persons responsible
Article 361. Proof of the truth
Article 362. Libelous remarks
Chapter Two. Incriminatory Machinations
Article 363. Incriminating innocent persons
Article 364. Intriguing against honor

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
circumstances tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who
is dead.
Elements:
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;
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.
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 or omission, condition,
status of, or circumstance
relating to the offended party.

Defamation is the proper term for libel as

used in Art. 353.
Libel strictly is a defamation committed by
means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph . or any similar
means.
When the defamation is oral, it is called
slander.
Seditious libel is punished not in this chapter
but in Art. 142 (Inciting to sedition).
Test of defamatory character of words used:
A charged 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.
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 the 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.
ELEMENT 1: IMPUTATION
Examples:
* Imputation of a vice imputing upon a
person lascivious and immoral habits in an
article
* Imputation of an act or omission X
borrows money without intention to pay, she
had her breasts augmented without paying the
doctor
*
Imputation
of
condition,
status
or
circumstance calling another a bastard or
mangkukulam
ELEMENT 2: PUBLICATION
Publication is the communication of the
defamatory matter to some third person or
persons.
Hence, sending a latter in a sealed envelope
through a messenger is not publication. But
sending to the wife, a letter defamatory of her
husband, is sufficient publication. (The person
defamed is the husband and the wife is already
considered a 3rd person)
If the defamatory imputation is not published
there is NO crime. The law permits us to think
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
154

as badly as we please of our neighbors so long

as we keep our uncharitable thought to
ourselves.
ELEMENT 3: MALICE
Malice is used to indicate that the offender is
prompted by personal ill-will or spite and
speaks merely to injure the reputation of the
person defamed.
Malice may be in-fact or in-law.
Malice in fact
- must be proved by a showing of ill-will, hatred
or purpose to injure
Malice in law
- is presumed from a defamatory imputation
proof of malice is not required
(The distinction exists for purposes of
determining WON there is defamation where
privileged communication is involved thus:) As
a general rule, malice in law is presumed from
a defamatory imputation. But where privileged
communication is involved, malice (in law) is
NOT presumed the plaintiff must prove
malice in fact. In either case, where malice in
fact is present, justifiable motives cannot exist
and the imputations become actionable.
ELEMENT 4: IDENTIFICATION
It must be shown that at least a 3 rd person
could identify the offended party as the object
of the libelous publication.
But libel published in different parts may be
taken together to establish the identification of
the offended party.
ELEMENT 5: DISHONOR, DISCREDIT, CONTEMPT
Dishonor disgrace, shame, ignominy
Discredit loss of credit or reputation;
disesteem
Contempt state of being despised
There are as many offenses as there were
persons defamed (PP vs. Del Rosario). When
the alleged slanderous utterances were
committed on the same date and at the same
place, but against two different persons, the
situation has given rise to two separate and
individual causes for prosecution, with respect
to each of the persons defamed.

Society. He filed an MTD on the ground of the telegram

being privileged communication. After the same was
denied, a MTQ, alleging that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, was filed but when the same again
met with a denial, the present action was instituted to
annul the aforesaid orders. Respondents, in their Comment,
stressed there was absence of any privilege, there being
malice and bad faith, petitioner having been motivated by
vengeance and ill-will in making the said communication as
established by his previous conduct viz a viz the private
respondent: the filing of several complaints, both
administrative and criminal aimed to malign her good
character and reputation which were subsequently
dismissed or closed for lack of merit and/or insufficiency of
evidence.
HELD:
Petition
dismissed.
Qualified
privilege
communication may be lost by proof of malice. The
prosecution should be given the opportunity of proving
malice in view of petitioner's conduct towards private
respondent which casts doubt on his good faith.
Agbayani vs. Sayo
Mahinan, manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of the GSIS
at Cauayan, Isabela, file at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya a
complaint for written defamation against 4 subordinates.
The 4 accused filed a MTQ, contending that the CFI Nueva
Vizcaya has no jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: The proper venue of Mahinans criminal action
against the petitioners is the CFI Isabela, since as GSIS
branch manager, he was a public officer stationed at
Cauayan, Isabela and that alleged libel was committed
when he was in the public service.
Newsweek vs. IAC
An article entitled An Island of Fear was published in
Newsweek. The author wrote that that the island province
of Negros Occidental is a place dominated by big
landowners who not only exploited the impoverished and
underpaid sugarcane laborers, but also brutalized and
killed them with impunity. The sugarcane planters
instituted a class action for libel.
HELD: To maintain a libel suit, a victim must be
identifiable. Defamatory matter which does not reveal the
identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast
affords no ground of action unless it can be shown that the
readers of the libel could have identified the personality of
the individual defamed. Defamatory remarks directed at a
group of persons is not actionable unless the statements
are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to
be identifiable.
Lacsa vs. IAC

Mercado vs. CFI

Petitioner was charged with libel for imputing to Mrs.
Virginia Mercado acts constituting enrichment thru corrupt
practices. The offensive telegram which contained the
allegations was addressed to the Secretary of the,
Department of Public Works and Communications
purportedly in line with President Marcos' appeal to the
public to give information on undesirable employees in the
government service to achieve the objectives of the New

Lacsa and Marquez were officers of the Philippine

Columbian Association. Lacsa uncovered a glitch in the
qualification of Marquez to be president. He addressed a
letter to Marquez in the ff. tenor: that Marquez should step
down from the presidency, because the position is open
only for proprietary members and Marquez has failed to
show any proof of his proprietary membership, that in view
of these, he has been holding the position in a de facto

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

155

capacity. This letter was published in the publication of the

association.
HELD: The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a
sentence into component phrases with the meticulous care
of the grammarian or stylist, but the import conveyed by
the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader. The
SolGen is correct in holding that the imputation of being
called a de facto president is tantamount to being
acknowledged as a pretender or impostor.

Soriano vs. IAC

Sorianos criminal liability was based on an article
published in The Guardian, of which he is the editor. The
basis of the article was a press release prepared in
Tacloban and delivered to various newspapers. The
intended circulation of The Guardian is nationwide. The
libel case was docked at the RTC Letye. Soriano filed n MTQ
on the basis of improper venue. He argues that the Leyte
court had no jurisdiction because the publication house of
The Guardian was located in Quezon City and that
Tantuico also holds office in QC.
HELD: Local jurisprudence follow the multiple
publication rule that each and every publication of the
same libel suit constitutes a separate offense, and warrants
a separate cause of action for filing a libel suit. However,
the publication requirement set forth by RPC360 refers to
the publication (the official circulating organ) and not
the press release. In harmonizing RPC360 with the
multiple publication rule, the press release is not the
document to be examined. Since the official publication is
produced in QC and was not proven to have been
produced/copied in Leyte or elsewhere, the trial should
have been handled by a QC court.
Bulletin vs. Noel
The article contained statements to the effect that
American influence was a significant driver of the political
ascendancy of the Mindalanos of Lanao. Complainants
claimed this was an insulting statement that damaged the
social standing of the clan.

HELD: The public article is but a faithful reproduction of a

pleading filed before a quasi-judicial body. There are no
embellishments, wild imputations etc. calculated to
damage the reputation of the offended parties and expose
them to public contempt. No valid cause of action to
institute an action for libel exists.
Sazon vs. CA
HELD: When the imputation is already held defamatory,
malice on the part of the defendant (malice-in-fact) need
not be proved because the law already presumes that the
imputation is malicious (malice-in-law).
Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts
of public officers which are related to the discharge of
their duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves
that truth of the imputation (thus a form of privileged
communication), but any attack on the private capacities
of a public officer clearly beyond the scope of his official
duties may constitute libel.
Even if the article falls under the cloak of privileged
communications, it will not discount the fact that he wrote
the same with malice, due to grudges an ill-will attendant
in the circumstances surrounding the facts.
Vasquez vs. CA
HELD: If the defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official duties
and functions and the truth of the allegation is shown, the
accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he
doesnt prove that the imputation was published with good
motives and for justifiable ends. (Because, upon proof of
truth, the burden of proving that the offender acted with
malice would be on the public officer)
Actual Malice Rule Even if the defamatory statement is
false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct,
unless the public official concerned proves that the
statement was made with knowledge that it was false or
with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Navarette vs. CA

HELD: The published work alleged to contain the libelous

excerpt must be examined and viewed as a whole. Titles of
royalty and nobility are not generally recognized or
acknowledged socially in the national community. Personal
hurt or embarrassment, even if real, is not automatically
equivalent to defamation. The law against defamation
protects the interest of a person in acquiring, retaining,
and enjoying a reputation as good as ones character and
conduct warrant in the community. It is the community
standards, not personal or family standards, that a court
must refer in evaluation a publication claimed to be
defamatory.
Santos vs. CA
The article published was a verbatim copy of a complained
filed by Sandejas with the SEC against the brokerage firm
of Carlos Sison.

Petitioner claims that private respondent alluded to him

when she said the words "stupid", "bastards", "swindlers",
and "plunderers" while testifying on the Deed of Sale with
Right of Repurchase subject of a civil case. In her Answer,
private respondent cited decisions of the Supreme Court to
the effect that no action for libel or for damages may be
founded on utterances made in the course of judicial
proceedings.
HELD: It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction that
statements made in the course of judicial proceedings
are absolutely privileged. This absolute privilege remains
regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of
malice if the same are relevant, pertinent or material to
the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry. Thus, the
person making these statements such as a judge, lawyer or
witness does not thereby incur the risk of being found
liable thereon in a criminal prosecution or an action for the
recovery of damages.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

156

The statements made during the course of judicial

proceedings enjoy the shield of absolute privilege. The
privilege is not intended so much for the protection of
those engaged in the public service and in the enactment
and administration of law, as for the promotion of public
welfare, the purpose being that members of the
legislature, judges of courts, jurors, lawyers and witnesses
may speak their minds freely and exercise their respective
functions without incurring the risk of a criminal
prosecution or an action for damages. In determining the
issue of relevancy of statements made in judicial
proceedings, courts have adopted a liberal attitude by
resolving all doubts in favor of relevancy.
Without question, the use of blatantly defamatory language
like "stupid", "bastards", "swindlers", and "plunderers" in
describing the adverse parties detract from the honor and
dignity that befits a court proceeding and should have been
stricken out of the records.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the
terms used by the private respondent in her pleading and in
her testimony cannot be the basis for an award of moral
damages and attorney's fees in favor of petitioner.
Jalandoni vs. Drilon
Respondents here were accused of printing libelous matter
in newspapers. The matter pertained to actions by
Jalandoni as member of the PCGG alleged to be illegal and
unauthorized (sold certain shares of a company at
undervalued prices to RCBC thereby defrauding the
government). Justice secretary reversed the findings of
prosecutors and dismissed the complaints.
HELD: Articles are not libelous. Articles merely stated
insinuations on the deal between RCBC and Jalandoni as
part of the PCGG. It just served to inform the public of
irregularities in the transaction. In libels against public
officers, to be liable, libel must relate to official conduct,
even if the statement is false, unless officer proves that it
was made with actual malice (with knowledge that it was
false or not).
Borjal vs. CA
Borjal wrote a series of articles in his column about a
certain Edsa hero who is organizing conferences and
seminars and soliciting money in the name of the President
and DOTC secretary without the latters consent and
authority. Wenceslao filed a case for libel saying that he
felt alluded to in the articles as the organizer and that he
was almost certain that it was him.
HELD: No libel. In libel, it is essential that the victim be
identifiable even if not actually named. It is not sufficient
that the victim himself made the identification, but it is
necessary that at least the victim be identifiable by a 3 rd
person.
CAB, no sufficient identification. Victim was not named,
there were many Edsa heroes and many organizers of the
seminars. And even the victim was not absolutely sure that
it was him being alluded to.
Fortich vs. Galleron

Fortich is a salesman of San Miguel. His supervisor Galleron

suspected him of misappropriating the collections he
received retailers and buyers, so an investigation was
conducted on the matter. Galleron submitted an interoffice memorandum containing the results of his
investigation. The memo was addressed to the Regional
Sales Manager and contained this paragraph:
In addition, I would like to further inform management
that S/M Stanley Fortich is an avid mahjong player and a
cockfighting enthusiast. In spite of several advices, there
seems to be no change in his lifestyle. Also, respondent had
a similar case last September 11, 1978.
HELD: The controversial paragraph is not libelous. First,
the memo was part and parcel of the investigation on
Fortichs non-remittance of collections.
Secondly, the
memo was notcirculated or publicized, much less read by
officers of the corporation other than those involved in the
investigation or those directly supervising the petitioner's
work. More importantly, Fortich was unable to prove that
the issuance of the memo was motivated by malice.
While malice is presumed in every defamatory imputation,
there are certain exceptions to this rule. The memo falls
under the privileged communication rule. A privileged
communication is one made bona fide upon any subject
matter in which the party communicating has an interest,
or in reference to which he has a duty. In the case at bar,
Galleron, being Fortichs supervisor, was charged with the
duty to carry out and enforce company rules and policies,
including the duty to undertake initial investigation of
possible irregularities in customer accounts. The memo
was an official act done in good faith, an honest innocent
statement arising from a moral and legal obligation which
the private respondent certainly owed to the company in
the performance of his duties.
Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA
Rafael filed an action for annulment of his marriage to
Teresita. Among the evidence presented by Rafael in the
trial court were several tape recordings of telephone
conversations between Teresita and unidentified persons.
The recordings were obtained when Rafael allowed his
friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone.
HELD: Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and
Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the
Privacy of Communication, and for other purposes"
expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in
evidence. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
telephone conversations allowed to recording of the same,
the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under
Rep. Act No. 4200.
People v. Ogie Diaz (2007)
The last element of libel is that the victim is identified or
identifiable from the contents of the libelous article. In
order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim
be identifiable, although it is not necessary that the
person be named. 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 person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

157

circumstances so that those knowing such person could and

did understand that he was the person referred to. Kunkle
v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule that this
requirement is complied with where a third person
recognized or could identify the party vilified in the
article.

Article 354. Requirement for Publicity

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to
be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
intention and justiable motice for making it is
shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any
person to another in the performance
of any legal, moral, or social duty;
2. 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.
The two exceptions in Art. 354 are the socalled
privileged
communications.
When
privileged communication is involved, malice in
fact must be proved to convict the accused.
Illustration of Art. 354: A tells C that B is a thief.
The fact is B is really is a thief, because he was
previously convicted of theft. Can it be
presumed that the imputation by B is
malicious? Yes, because Art. 354 says that
every defeamatory imputation is presumed to
be malicious even if it be true.
But the presumption of malice is rebutted if A
can show (1) good intention and (2) justifiable
motive for making the imputation.
Thus, if B is applying for a position of security
guard in the store of C, brother of A, and the
purpose of A is to protect his brother from
undesirable employees, then malice cannot be
presumed.
Two kinds of privileged communication:
(1) Absolute
- not actionable, EVEN IF its author acted in
bad faith
- this class includes statements made by
members of Congress in the discharge of
their functions as such, allegations in
pleadings made by parties or their counsel,
answers given by witnesses in reply to
questions propounded to them (provided
the answers are responsive and the
allegations are relevant)

- usually limited to legislative and judicial

proceedings and other acts of state
(2) Conditional or qualified
- not actionable UNLESS made with malice
or bad faith
- this class includes those communications
mentioned as exceptions in Art. 354
RE: Par. 1 (Private communication made by
any person to another)
Illustration: X files a complaint in good faith
against a priest to his ecclesiastical superior
allegedly for taking indecent liberties of women
private communication in the performance
of a moral duty privileged!
Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith.
So for example, if a copy of the complaint
above is sent to a newspaper for publication,
the privilege is destroyed.
That the statement is a privileged
communication is a matter of defense and, like
all other matters of defense, must be
established by the accused.
Tapos, if the accused sets up privileged
communication as a defense, to overcome it,
the prosecutions must prove that (1) the
defendant acted with malice in fact (because
the privileged only negates the presumption of
malice in law), or (2) there is no reasonable
ground for believing the charge to be true.
Illustration of no reasonable ground for
believing the charge to be true: X admitted
that he had personally made no investigation
with reference to the truth of many of the
statements made in the communication to the
Secretary of Justice, especially with reference
to the statements based on rumors that a
judge received a bribe for dismissing a murder
case.
RE: Par. 2 (Fair and true report of official
proceedings)
Defamatory remarks and comments on the
conduct or acts of public officers which are
related to the discharge of their official duties
will not constitute libel if the defendant proves
the truth of the imputation. The conduct of
public officers which are related to the
discharge of their official duties are matters of
public interest, and it is a defense to an action
for libel or slander that the words complained
of are a fair comment on a matter of public
interest.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

158

What is a fair comment? If the comment is an

expression of an opinion, based upon proven
facts, then it is no matter that the opinion
happens to be mistaken so long as it might be
reasonably inferred from the facts. Comment
may be fair, although wrong.
But any attack upon the private character of
the public officer on matters which are not
related to the discharge of their official
functions, may constitute libel. No one has the
right to invade anothers privacy.
Rule on self-defense A person libeled is
justified to hit back with another libel. But the
defamatory statements made by the accused
must be a fair answer to the libel made by the
offended party and must be related to the
imputation made. The answer should not be
unnecessarily libelous.
Illustration: A to B, C & D: You pimp, women of
ill repute, thieves, paramours of my husband.
B to A: You are a woman of the street, you
smell bad, and your money was stolen from the
PCAU + C to A You are shameless,
blackmailer, murderer + D to A You have a
thick face, you are not legally married, you are
the paramour of Father Baluyut.
Held: To repel attack, the defendant may make
an explanation of the imputation, and it is only
where, if by explaining, he must of necessity
have to use scurrilous and slanderous remarks,
that he may legally be allowed to do so without
placing himself under criminal prosecution.
Here, B, C, Ds remarks were unnecessarily
scurrilous.
Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or
Similar Means
A libel may be committed by means of 1. Writing;
2. Printing;
3. Lithography;
4. Engraving;
5. Radio;
6. Photograph;
7. Painting;
8. Theatrical exhibition;
9. Cinematographic exhibition; or
10. Any similar means.
Defamation through amplifier is not libel, but
oral defamation. The word radio should be
considered in relation to the terms with which it
is associated all of which have a common
characteristic, namely, their permanent nature
as a means of publication.

But defamation made in a TV program is

libel. It easily qualifies under the general
provision or any similar means.
Magno v. People (2006)
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party
constitutes publication.
Buatis v. People (2006)
Facts: One lawyer sent another an insulting letter, in
closing saying, Yours in Satans name.
Held: There is publication in this case. In libel, publication
means making the defamatory matter, after it is written,
known to someone other than the person against whom it
has been written. Petitioners subject letter-reply itself
states that the same was copy furnished to all
concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the letter to his
secretary. It is enough that the author of the libel
complained of has communicated it to a third person.
Furthermore, the letter, when found in the mailbox, was
open, not contained in an envelope thus, open to public.
While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the
reasons behind the imposition of fine instead of
imprisonment applicable to petitioners case of libel. We
note that this is petitioners first offense of this nature. He
never knew respondent prior to the demand letter sent by
the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his assistance
thereto. He appealed from the decision of the RTC and the
CA in his belief that he was merely exercising a civil or
moral duty in writing the letter to private complainant. In
fact, petitioner could have applied for probation to evade
prison term but he did not do so believing that he did not
commit a crime thus, he appealed his case. We believe that
the State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity
of protecting the social organization against the criminal
acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the
individual for economic usefulness and other social ends.
Consequently, we delete the prison sentence imposed on
petitioner and instead impose a fine of six thousand pesos.
This is not the first time that we removed the penalty of
imprisonment and imposed a fine instead in the crime of
libel. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals, petitioner was
convicted of libel and was meted a penalty of
imprisonment and fine; and upon a petition filed with us,
we affirmed the findings of libel but changed the penalty
imposed to a mere fine.

Article 356. Threatening to Publish and

Offer to Prevent Such Publication for A
Compensation
Acts punished
1.Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child,
or other members of his family;
2. Offering to prevent the publication of such
libel for compensation or money consideration.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
159

 Blackmail - In its metaphorical sense,

blackmail may be defined as any unlawful
extortion of money by threats of accusation or
exposure. Two words are expressive of the
crime - hush money.
In what felonies is blackmail possible?
Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under
Article 283; and (2) threatening to publish, or
offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for
compensation, under Article 356.
Article 357.
Prohibited Publication of
Acts Referred to in the Course of Official
Proceedings
Elements
1. Offender is a reporter, editor or
manager of a newspaper, daily or
magazine;
2. He publishes facts connected with the
private life of another;
3. Such facts are offensive to the honor,
virtue and reputation of said person.
The provisions of Art. 357 constitute the socalled Gag Law. Newspaper reports on
cases pertaining to adultery, divorce, issues
about the legitimacy of children etc., will
necessarily be barred from publication.
The prohibition applies even though said
publication be made in connection with or
under the pretext that it is necessary in the
narration of any judicial or administrative
proceedings wherein such facts have been
mentioned.
Illustration: A uttered defamatory remarks
calling a priest a savage and that he had a
concubine. While the case was pending trial, a
newspaper published the complaint verbatim
including the defamatory expressions of A.
RA1477 The publisher, editor, columnist or
reporter of any periodical of general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of
any news report or information appearing in
said publication which was related in
confidence to such publisher etc. unless the
court or a House or committee of Congress
finds that such revelation is demanded by the
security of the State, without prejudice to the
publishers etc. liability under civil and criminal
laws.
Article 358. Slander
Slander is oral defamation.
kinds of oral defamation:

There are tow

(1) Simple slander; and

(2) Grave slander, when it is of a
serious and insulting nature.
Factors that determine the gravity of oral
defamation:
1. expressions used
2. personal relations of the accused and
the offended party
3. circumstances surrounding the case
Illustration of grave slander: You sold the
union. You swindled the money of the members
and received bribe money in the amount of
P10K
Illustration of simple slander: An accusation
that the offended party has been living
successively and with several men uttered
before several persons, when intended to
correct an improper conduct of the offended
party, a kin of the accused, is only simple
slander.
The slander need not be heard by the
offended party, because a mans reputation is
the estimate in which other hold him, not the
good opinion which he has of himself.
People vs. Pelayo
Pelayo told Clapano (councilor), within the hearing of three
people, that in one of his investigations on illegal gambling,
an operator, Lim Peng, told him Almendras (governor)
received P500 from said operator as protection money. The
following day, Pelayo delivered a privileged speech in the
City Councils session where it could be inferred that he
was referring to Almendras as a tong collector.
HELD: Facts of the case do NOT constitute intriguing
against honor where the source of the derogatory
information cannot be determined and defendant borrows
the same without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it
to others. The information allegedly came from a definite
source (Lim Peng) which he adopted as his, passed it to
another for the purpose of causing dishonor to the others
reputation. The act is slander (light oral defamation).
Victorio vs. CA
Father and son Victorio were overheard by people to have
uttered defamatory words against Atty. Ruiz after a hearing
where Atty. Ruiz moved for contempt of the counsel of
Victorio. They were found guilty of Grave Oral Defamation.
HELD: Oral defamation or slander has been defined as the
speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to
prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business
or means of livelihood. The special circumstances of the
case, antecedents or relationship between offended and
offender, which might tend to prove intention of offender
at the time, aside from the sense and grammatical meaning
of the defamatory words are considered as guidelines in
determining whether the offense is serious or slight.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

160

Attributing to a prominent lawyer a crime (estafa) is a

serious and insulting imputation that strikes deep into the
character of the victim. No special circumstance need be
shown for defamatory words to be considered grave oral
defamation.
That defamatory words were uttered in the heat of anger
cannot lie where there was no reason or lawful cause to be
angry against Ruiz who was merely performing his duties
aw a lawyer in defense of client, and no provocation.
People vs. Orcullo
Judge Orcullo dismissed the case for oral defamation
against Peralta (she imputed adultery and prostitution
against Flores) on the ground that it was a private crime to
be instituted by the offended party. SC reinstated case for
trial.
HELD: The words said by Peralta are indubitably imputation
of the crime of prostitution, which can be prosecuted de
oficio and not adultery. Connotation of hostess is
notoriously referred to prostitutes. Only when derogatory
remarks clearly and categorically reflect the elements
constituting adultery would the complainant for libel by
the offended party be necessary to commence prosecution
Villanueva v. People (2006)
The Court does not condone the vilification or use of
scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but following
the rule that all possible circumstances favorable to the
accused must be taken in his favor, it is our considered
view that the slander committed by petitioner can be
characterized as slight slander following the doctrine that
uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with
some provocation on the part of the offended party,
constitutes only a light felony.
Figeroa v. People (2006)
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature depends
on its scope, spirit and motive taken in their entirety, the
article in question as a whole explicitly makes mention of
private complainant Rivera all throughout. It cannot be said
that the article was a mere general commentary on the
alleged existing state of affairs at the aforementioned
public market because Rivera was not only specifically
pointed out several times therein but was even tagged with
derogatory names. Indubitably, this name-calling was, as
correctly found by the two courts below, directed at the
very person of Rivera himself.

Article 359. Slander by Deed

Elements
1. Offender performs any act not included
in any other crime against honor;
2. Such act is performed in the presence
of other person or persons;
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon the offended party.

Slander by deed refers to performance of an

act, not use of words.
Two kinds of slander by deed
1. Simple slander by deed; and
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is
of a serious nature.
What is slander by deed? It is a crime against
honor which is committed by performing an act
which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt
upon another person.
Illustrations: slapping the face of another if the
intention is to cause shame and humiliation,
fighting another with intention to humiliate him
vs. Acts of lasciviousness
Kissing a girl in public and touching her breasts
without lewd designs, committed by a rejected
suitor to cast dishonor on the girl is slander by
deed NOT acts of lasciviousness.
vs. Maltreatment
The nature and effects of the 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

Slander by
Acts of
deed
lasciviousness
Irritation or annoyance
+ With publicity + presence of
and dishonor or the
contempt
circumstances
provided for in
RPC
335 on
rape (force or
intimidation,
unconscious
etc.)
together
with
lewd
designs

People vs. Motita

Motita used a mirror to view reflection of private parts of
Letada. Crowd nearby were laughing with their eyes
directed towards her.
HELD: Crime committed was slander by deed.
Unjust vexation is committed when the offenders act
caused annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress or
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
directed. If there was attendant publicity and dishonor or
contempt in addition to the irrigation or annoyance,
offense would be slander by deed as in this case. If any of
the circumstances provided for rape together with lewd
designs were present in addition to the annoyance, the
offense would be act of lasciviousness.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

161

Article 360. Persons responsible

The persons responsible for libel are:
1.

2.
3.
4.

The person who publishes, exhibits or

causes the publication or exhibition of
any defamation in writing or similar
means;
The author or editor of a book or
pamphlet;
The editor or business manager of a
daily newspaper magazine or serial
publication;
The owner of a printing plant which
publishes a libelous article with his
consent and all other persons who in
any way participate in or have
connection with its publication.

Venue of criminal and civil actions for damages

in cases of written defamations (In case one of
the offended parties is a private individual)
1.
2.

Where the libelous article is printed

and first published; or
Where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.

Where one of the offended parties is a public

officer, the action shall be filed in the CFI (1) of
the province or city where he held office at the
time of the commission of the offense OR (2)
where the libelous article is printed and first
published.
The civil action shall be filed in the same
cdourt where the criminal action is filed and
vice versa.
The court where the criminal action or civil
action for damages is 1 st filed shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
If the defamation consists in the imputation
of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de
oficio
(adultery,
concubinage,
seduction,
abduction and acts of lasciviousness), then the
offended party must a complaint.
RE: DAMAGES recoverable
Actual damages need not be proved, at least
(1) where the publication is libelous per se or
(2) when the amount of the award is more or
less nominal, because libel, by its nature,
causes injury to the reputation of the offended
party.
There is no remedy for damages for slander
or libel in case of absolutely privileged
communication.

Article 361. Proof of the 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 libelous is
true, and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the
defendant shall be acquitted.
Proof of the 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 the Government employees
with respect to 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:
1.

2.

When the act or omission imputed

constitutes a crime regardless of
whether the offended party is a private
individual or a public officer;
When the offended party is a
Government employee, even if the act
or omission imputed doesnt constitute
a crime, provided, it is related to the
discharge of his official duties.

Illustration: A said that B, a govt official, was in

the habit of drinking during office hours and
that he was always in a boisterous condition. Is
proof of truth allowed in case B should file a
complaint against A for defamation? Yes. Both
public interest and the good of the service
demand that a drunkard be barred from the
service. But when the imputation involves the
private life of B which is not related to the
discharge of his official duties, the offender
cannot prove the truth thereof.
Another
illustration:
A
made
several
imputations against C, a private individual,
some of which insinuated the commission of
crimes and some did not. Is proof of truth
allowed? It depends. The defendant will be
allowed to prove the truth of the imputations
constituting crimes but he will not be allowed
to prove the truth of the imputations not
constituting crimes.
DEFENSE in defamation, requisities:
1. Truth
2. Matter was published with
motives

good

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

162

3.

For justifiable ends

Retraction may mitigate damages. But in

order to have the desired effect, the retraction
should contain an admission of the falsity of
the libelous publication and evince a strong
desire to repair the wrong occasioned thereby.

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.
Thus, the author of a publication who
distorts or discolors official proceedings
reported by him, or adds comments thereon to
cast aspersion on the character of the parties
concerned, is guilty of libel, notwithstanding
that the defamatory matter is published in
connection with a privileged matter.
Incriminating

Innocent

Elements
1. Offender performs an act;
2. By such an act, he incriminates or
imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime;
3. Such act does not constitute perjury.
This article is limited to planting evidence
and the like, which do not in themselves
constitute false prosecutions but tend directly
to cause false prosecution.
Incriminating an
innocent person
Committed
by
performing an act by
which
the
offender
directly
incriminates
another
Limited to the act of
planting evidence

Incriminatory
machinations
Offender doesnt avail
himself of written or
spoken
words
in
besmirching the victims
reputation
Not required

Perjury by making
false accusation
The gravamen is the
imputation itself, falsely
made before an officer
Giving of false statement
under oath or making a
false affidavit, imputing
to
another
the
commission of a crime
Defamation
Words, written or spoken,
are availed of

Imputation

People vs. Alagao

Is there a complex crime of incriminating an innocent
person through unlawful arrest?

Article 362. Libelous remarks

Article 363.
Persons

public and malicious &

must be calculated to
cause
the
dishonor,
discredit or contempt of
the aggrieved party

must

be

HELD: Yes. The two acts imputed to the accused

closely followed each other, the unlawful arrest being
a necessary means to plant the incriminatory
evidence. Under the circumstances of the case, the
accused had to arrest M because it was the only way
that they could with facility detain him, search his
person or effects and, commingle therewith the
marked peso bill. A complex crime was committed.
Huggland vs. Lantin
Judge Lantin was arrested for bribery for allegedly having
received marked money amounting to P5,000 from one
Magdalena Huggland who was implicated in a criminal case.
The P5,000 was allegedly part of the P25,000 being asked
by Judge Lantin for the cancellation of the hold departure
order issued against Ms. Huggland. The issue is whether
this is case of entrapment or planting of evidence.
HELD: This is a case of entrapment. Let us distinguish
entrapment from planting of evidence. In entrapment, the
criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged
originates in the mind of the accused and the law
enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of
the offense, the accused cannot justify his conduct.
Planting of evidence or incriminating innocent person is
committed by performing an act by which the offender
directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime.
From the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted
by the parties, there is reason to believe that indeed, this
is a case of entrapment not planting of evidence. The
conclusion is based on the following:
(1) The subpoena was illegally issued;
(2) The Motion to Quash Hold Departure Order and the
Order of Cancellation of the Hold Departure Order were
prepared and typewritten by the respondent; and
(3) The Money used in the entrapment operation was
recovered from one of the left drawers of the respondent's
table.

Article 364. Intriguing against Honor

This crime is committed by any person who
shall make any intrigue which has for its
principal purpose to blemish the honor or
reputation of another person.
Incriminating an
innocent person
Offender performs an
act by which he directly

Intriguing against
Honor
Offender resorts to an
intrigue for the purpose

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

163

incriminates or imputes
to an innocent person
the commission of a
crime

of blemishing the honor

or reputation of another
person

Defamation

Intriguing against
Honor
Committed by means
which consists of some
tricky and secret plot

Done by availing directly

of spoken words
ex., gossiping
Slander
The source of the info
can be pinpointed and
the defendant, adopting
as
his
own
the
information
he
has
obtained,
passes
the
same to another for the
purpose
of
causing
dishonor
to
complainants reputation

It is not unlawful:

Intriguing against
Honor
The source or the author
of the derogatory info
cannot be determined
and
the
defendant
borrows the same, and
without subscribing to
the truth thereof, passes
it to others

REPUBLIC ACT No. 4200

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE
TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF
THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
It shall be unlawful:
a)

b)

c)

thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such

violation.

for any person, not being authorized by all

the parties to any private communication or
spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by
using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise
described;
for any person, be he a participant or not in
the act or acts penalized in the next
preceding sentence, (1) to knowingly
possess any tape record, wire record, disc
record, or any other such record, or copies
thereof, of any communication or spoken
word secured either before or after the
effective date of this Act in the manner
prohibited by this law; or (2) to replay the
same for any other person or persons; or (3)
to communicate the contents thereof, either
verbally or in writing, or (4) to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or
partial, to any other person.
Provided,
That the use of such record or any copies
thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses, shall
not be covered by this prohibition;
for any person who willfully or knowingly
does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be
done any of the acts declared to be
unlawful or who violates the provisions of
the following section or of any order issued

a)

for any peace officer, who is authorized by a

written order of the Court, to execute any of
the acts declared to be unlawful in cases
involving the crimes of treason, espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
conspiracy and
proposal
to
commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to
sedition, kidnapping as defined by the
Revised Penal Code, and violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against
national security: Provided, That such
written order shall only be issued or
granted upon written application and
the
examination
under
oath
or
affirmation of the applicant and the
witnesses he may produce and a
showing: (1) that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that any of the crimes
enumerated
hereinabove
has
been
committed or is being committed or is about
to be committed: Provided, however, That
in cases involving the offenses of rebellion,
conspiracy and
proposal
to
commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting
to sedition, such authority shall be granted
only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts
of sedition, as the case may be, have
actually been or are being committed; (2)
that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that evidence will be obtained essential to
the conviction of any person for, or to the
solution of, or to the prevention of, any of
such crimes; and (3) that there are no other
means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.

Effect of violation of the law: Any communication or

spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,
purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part
thereof, or any information therein contained
obtained or secured by any person in violation of this
Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any
judicial,
quasi-judicial,
legislative
or
administrative hearing or investigation.

Gaanan vs. IAC

Atty. Pinto filed a complaint for direct assault against Atty.
Laconico. Pintor, through phone, offered to withdraw the
complaint for consideration. Atty. Gaanan was able to
overhear this conversation through a telephone extension.
Pinto was arrested for extortion. But Gaanan and Laconico
were charged with violation of RA4200 and found guilty by
the lower court.
HELD: The phrase any other device or arrangement in the
Ant-Wiretapping Law doesnt cover an extension line. The
law refers to a tap of a wire or cable or the use of a device

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

164

or arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing,

intercepting or recording the communication. There must
be the physical interruption through a wiretap or the
deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order
to overhear, intercept or record the spoken words. The
extension here was not installed for the purpose but for
ordinary office use. Also, an extension phone is an
instrument which is very common, not what the law refers
to in which the presence of such devices cannot be
presumed by the party being overheard.
Ramirez vs. CA
Ramirez field a civil case for damages against Garcia. IN
support of her claim, she produced a verbatim transcript of
the confrontation with Garcia where the latter allegedly
vexed, insulted and humiliated her. The transcription on
which the civil case was based was culled from a tape
recording of the confrontation made by petitioner. As a
result of the recording, Garcia filed a criminal case against
Ramirez for violation of RA 4200.
HELD: The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party
other than or different from those involved in the private
communication. The statutes intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the
use of the qualifier any. Consequently, as respondent CA
correctly concluded, even a person privy to a
communication who records his private conversation with
another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify
as a violator under the provisions of RA4200. The
lawmakers contemplated to make illegal unauthorized
taped recording of private conversation or communication
taken by either of the parties themselves of by third
persons. The nature of the conversation is immaterial for
conviction of the crime and communication as used
includes conversation.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

165