13. Who can file a complaint for libel?

A criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be
prosecuted de oficio can only be filed by the offended party. (Art. 360, RPC).

But, a libel attributing a defect or vice, real or imaginary, which does not constitute a crime but brings
into disrepute, scorn or ridicule, or tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt, can be prosecuted
de oficio. In other words, the complaint of the offended party is not necessary, and the information filed
by the prosecuting officer is enough to confer jurisdiction upon the court to try the defendant charged
with the crime. (Santos, et al. vs. Guballa, No. L-7316 and L-7317, Dec. 19, 1955).

In other words, the provincial fiscal may file the information upon his own initiative without the
offended party�s complaint and even over his objection. (People vs. Pascual, et al., 102 Phil. 503).

18. What are the essential elements of libel?

There are four (4) essential elements of libel, namely:

a. The imputation must be defamatory;

b. The imputation must be made publicly;

c. The imputation must be malicious; and

d. The person defamed must be identifiable.

(People vs. Monton, 6 SCRA 801)

ELEMENTS OF LIBEL

FIRST ELEMENT: THERE MUST BE A DEFAMATORY IMPUTATION.

19. What can the defamatory imputation cover?

The imputation can cover any of the following;

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 which tend to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.

22. Examples of imputations of vice or defect, real or imaginary, of the offended party.

) �One who grabs another�s husband� does not necessarily mean an adulteress. At most, it may
imply that the person to whom it is addressed is a �flirt, a temptress, or one who indulges in enticing
other husbands� hence, it is more of an imputation of a vice, condition, or act not constituting a
crime. (Gonzales vs. Arcilla, 203 SCRA 609)

25. In determining whether certain words are defamatory, is the intent of the writer material?

In matters of libel, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what is the meaning
of the words he has used. The meaning of the writer is quite immaterial. The question is not what the
writer meant, but what his words conveyed to those who heard or read them. It is not the intention of
the speaker or writer, 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. (People vs. Encarnacion, C.A. 48
O.G. 1817).

26. Is it necessary that the defamatory imputation be in certain and express terms?

No. Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false
charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A 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. (U.S. vs. O�Connell, 37 Phil. 767)

29. What constitutes publication?

Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons (People vs.
Atencio, CA-G.R. Nos. 11351-R to 11353-R, Dec. 14, 1954). Libel is published not only when it is widely
circulated, but also when it is made known or brought to the attention or notice of another person other
than its author and the offended party. (U.S. vs. Ubinana, 1 Phil. 471).

The communication of libelous matter to the person defamed alone does not amount to publication, for
that cannot injure his reputation. A man�s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the
good opinion which he has of himself. (People vs. Atencio, CA-G.R. Nos. 11351-R to 11353-R, Dec. 14,
1954).
30. Examples of publication.

(a) Writing a letter to another person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute
publication, for the person to whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and
the person defamed therein (Orfanel vs. People, 30 SCRA 819)

(b) Sending to the wife a letter defamatory of her husband is sufficient publication (U.S. vs. Ubi�ana, 1
Phil. 471). The person defamed is the husband and the wife is the third person to whom the publication
is made.

31. What is the �multiple publication� rule?

Each and every publication of the same libel constitutes a distinct offense. Stated more succinctly for
purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended, every time the same
written matter is communicated such communication is considered a distinct and separate publication
of the libel.

It is a settled jurisprudence that each separate publication of a libel constitutes a distinct crime of libel,
although two libelous publications arose out of the same controversy and even if one was partial
reiteration of the first. (People vs. Sotto, 36 Phil. 389; Montinola vs. Montalvo, 34 Phil. 662; Soriano vs.
IAC, 167 SCRA 222)

59. How can the prosecution or plaintiff prove malice in fact, i.e. actual malice?

The existence of malice in fact may be shown by extrinsic evidence that the defendant bore a grudge
against the offended party, or that there was rivalry or ill-feeling between them which existed at the
date of the publication of the defamatory imputation, or that the defendant had an intention to injure
the reputation of the offended party as shown by the words used and the circumstances attending the
publication of the defamatory imputation.

60. Examples of the existence of malice in fact.

(a) The accused admitted that he was motivated by hate and revenge because the offended party
instigated the filing of criminal cases against him, without which he would not have sent the
communication at all. Malice in fact being present in this case, justifiable motives cannot exist
and the communication becomes actionable. (People vs. Hogan, C.A., 55 O.G. 1597).

66. When is proof of truth a defense in libel?

Proof of truth is admissible as a defense in any of the following:

a. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a
private individual or a public officer;

b. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission does not constitute a
crime, provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties. (Art. 361, RPC)

But when the imputation involves the private life of a government employee which is not related to the
discharge of his official functions, the offender can not prove the truth thereof.

67. Is proof of truth sufficient to acquit an accused in an action for libel?

No, proof of the truth is not enough. It is also required that the matter charged as libelous was
published with good motives and for justifiable ends. (Art. 361, RPC)