TITLE 13-CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
suppose and understand that the person against whom they were uttered was
Section 1-Definition, forms and punishment of the crime
1. Art. 353 – Definition of libel
2. Art. 354 – Requirement for publicity
3. Art. 355 – Libel by means of writings or similar means (provides penalty
for libel)
4. Art. 356 – Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication
for compensation
5. Art. 357 – Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of
official proceedings
6. Art. 358 - Slander
Art 353 – Definition of Libel
“Libel” is a defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, paiting or theatrical or cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar meanrs. On the other hand, “oral defamation” is
called slander.
Note: seditious libel is punished in Art 142 (Inciting to sedition) since in this
article, it punishes all kids of attack against honor and reputation
Purpose of Article 353
Enjoyment of a private reputation is as much as a constitutional right as
the possession of life, liberty or property.
Elements of Defamation
1. That there must be an imputation of a A) crime, or of a B) vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or C) any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance.
2. That the imputation must be made publicly.
3. That it must be malicious.
4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or
one who is dead.
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the A) dishonor, B) discredit or
C) contempt of the person defamed. [ D) to blacken the memory of one
who is dead ]
TEST OF DEFAMATORY CHARACTER OF THE WORDS USED
A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to
guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach his honesty, virtue
or reputation, or to hold him up to public ridicule.
Notes:
1. The meaning of the writer is IMMATERIAL; whatever he/she may
have intended should not be considered. What is considered is: the meaning
of 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.
2. Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous
3. Expression of opinion (one which is based on actual fact) is NOT
libelous IF the communication is made in the performance of a “legal,
moral or social duty.”
Art 354 – Requirement for Publicity
“Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it to be
true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
except in the following cases:
1. 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.”
Presumption of malice is rebutted, if it is shown by the accused that:
(a) the defamatory imputation is true, in case the law allows proof of the
truth of the imputation
(b) it is published with good intention
(c) there is justifiable motive for making it
PAR. 1 , ART. 354
Two kinds of privileged communications (wherein malice is not presumed)
1) Absolute
• it is not actionable even if its author acted in bad faith
• i.e. statements made by members of Congress in the
discharge of their functions as such, official communications
 made by public officers in the performance of their duties, etc.
(even those in judicial proceedings by lawyers
themselves Malit vs. People)
2) Conditional or Qualified
• Would not be actionable unless author was in bad faith
• If malice is shown, it CAN BE ACTIONABLE
Art 356 – Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such
publication for a compensation
Acts punished:
1. By threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents,
spouse, child, or other members of his family.
2. By offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation,
or money consideration

Purpose for the Doctrine of Privileged Communication Blackmail defined:

The right of the individual to enjoy immunity from publication of - any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure
untruthful charges derogatory to his character is not absolute and must at
times yield to the superior necessity of subjecting to investigation the In what felonies is blackmail possible?
conduct of persons charged with wrongdoing. 1. Light threats (Art. 283)
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a
compensation (Art. 356)

PAR. 2 , ART. 354 Art 357 – Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the
Fair and true report of official proceedings
In order that the publication of a report of an official proceeding may be
course of official proceedings
considered privileged, the following conditions must exist:
------------------------- Constitutes the so-called “Gag Law”------------------------------
a) that it is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative, or other official
proceedings which are NOT of confidential nature, or of a statement, report or
Elements
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by a
1. Offender is a reporter, editor, or manager of a newspaper daily or
public officer in the exercise of his functions
magazine.
b) it is made in good faith
2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another.
c) it is without any comments or remarks
3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said
person
Art 355 – Libel by means of writings or similar means
note: elements 2 and 3 must concur OR ELSE there is no violation
A libel may be committed by means of:
©Cases
1. Writing 6. Phonograph Malit vs. People 114 SCRA 348: May 31, 1982- Petitioner Malit was counsel
2. Printing 7. Painting of a certain Ruth Fernandez in an administrative case filed against her by a
3. Lithography 8. Theatrical exhibition Dr. Macaspac. On cross examination by Malit stated “I doubt how did you
4. Engraving 9. Cinematographic exhibition become a doctor” because Dr. Macaspac would not understand the word
5. Radio 10. Or any similar means “made.” Hence, Dr. Macaspac filed a complaint for slander (but an information
for UNJUST VEXATION was filed).
note: defamation through amplifier (speaker system) is not libel, but oral SC SAID:
defamation. Oral defamation in a television program is libel since it falls  Well settled rule that parties, counsel and witnesses are exempted
under “or any similar means” from liability from libel or slander cases for words otherwise
defamatory, uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings,
PENALTY is given in this article (PC in its min and med periods) provided the statements are pertinent or relevant to the case.
DOCTRINE: Utterances made in the course of judicial or administrative
proceedings belong to the class of communications that are absolutely
privileged.
Mercado vs. CFI 116 SCRA 93 August 25, 1982- A telegram (by Rafael
Mercado) addressed to a superior officer (Sec. David Consunji; Dep. Of
Public Works and Communications) asked to investigate private respondent
Virginia Mercado’s assets since the letter alleged that she has enriched
herself thru corrupt practices (since her husband was jobless and she had
assets which her salary could not possibly afford).
SC SAID:
• United States vs. Bustos – a qualified privilege maybe “lost by proof
of malice”; qualified privilege - > complaint made in good faith and
without malice in regard to the character or conduct of a public official
when addressed to an officer or a board having some interest or duty
in the matter.
• Case at bar: what casts doubt on the good faith of petitioner is his
tenacity with which he had pursued a course of conduct on its face
would seem to indicated that a doubt could reasonably be entertained
(even if Virginia had proven to be innocent of the “charges” against
her)
DOCTRINE: Qualified privileges can be lost by proof of malice; letters to a
board or superior officer are only qualified privileges
Agbayani vs. Sayo 89 SCRA 699 April 30, 1979- Mahinan filed a complaint
of libel against his subordinates in GSIS (Agbayani et al) for making
documents that allegedly depicted him as “an incorrigible managerial misfit,
despoiler of public office, spendthrift of GSIS funds, inveterate gambler,
chronic falsifier and an unreformed convict”
SC:
• Mahinan cannot file his case in CFI of Nueva Viscaya since he was
stationed in Isabela where the alleged libel was committed.
•
DOCTRINE: Actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be
filed in the courts within the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published (regardless of where it was written) or where the
offended parties actually reside at the time of the commission of the offense.
Newsweek vs. IAC 142 SCRA 171 May 30, 1986- Private respondents,
incorporated associations of sugarcane planters, filed a libel suit against
Newsweek for its article which portrayed Negros Occidental as a place
dominated by sugarcane planters who exploited workers and brutalized them
with impunity.
SC:
1. Complainants have no cause of action for it made no allegation that
anything contained in the article referred to specifically to any one of them. In
order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable.
2. Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is not actionable
UNLESS the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for
victim to be identifiable.
Lacsa vs. IAC 161 SCRA 427 May 23, 1988- Lacsa was a CPA and a
member of the Board of Directors of the Phil. Columbian Association;
complainant is Ponciano Marquez (President of Board). Lacsa had access to
the records of its members and he discovered that Marquez was a mere
associate member of the association. Hence, he questioned Marquez’s
qualifications and wrote a letter to the Board (and even to Marquez; which
was later published and circulated to the members) “branded” Marquez as a
DE FACTO president.
SC:
1. Test of libelous meaning 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.
2. Even if the letter is a privileged communication, it lost its character
as such when the matter was published in the newsletter and circulated
among the members.
3. No good faith since it was his irresponsible act of letter writing to
expose his alleged discovery of what he perceived to be an anomaly without
the verification which ordinary prudence demands.
Soriano vs. IAC 167 SCRA 222 November 9, 1988- Chairman of the COA
Francis Tantuico filed a libel suit against Soriano for imputing that he
tampered election returns in the 84 elections. Soriano (editor) and 6 others
were employees of THE GUARDIAN (newspaper) which published an article
alleging such.
SC:
1. “Multiple publication” rule – each and every publication of the same
libel constitutes a distinct offense
2. The editor/business manager of a daily newspaper or magazine
shall be responsible for the defamation contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author himself.
3. As the respondent held office in QC and that the offending newspaper
is published in QC, the case should be filed in a QC court.
Bulletin Publishing Corp. vs. Noel 167 SCRA 255 November 9, 1988- 21
alleged relatives of the late Amir Mindalano (in behalf of him and their clan)
filed a complaint (LIBEL) against petitioner for the article by Jamil Flores
which appeared in an issue of the Philippine Panorama.
SC: 1. The identification of Amir Mindalano is thus merely illustrative or
incidental to the course of the development of the theme of the article.
Language of the article appeals simply declaratory or expository in character,
matter-of-fact and unemotional in tone and tenor. No derogatory or derisive
implications.
Santos vs. CA 203 SCRA 110 October 21, 1991- Santos, as a columnist of
then Manila Daily Bulletin wrote in his weekly column a quoted statement from
an unverified complaint filed w/ the SEC (by Rosario Sandejas charging CMS
Stock Brokerage Inc. particularly priv resp). He was then charged of libel as
well as other employees of the newspaper.
SC:
1. Malice is presumed in every defamatory imputation but does not arise
if the communication is privileged under Art. 354.
2. The published article is privileged, being a fair and true report of a
judicial proceeding, without comments or remarks, and therefore not
punishable since it was a faithful reproduction of a pleading filed before a
quasi-judicial body.
Sazon vs. CA 255 SCRA 692 March 29, 1996- Sazon was the editor of the
monthly newsletter of the Parang Bagong Lipunan Community Association
Inc. (association of home owners). The association held an election for the
members of its board and among those who ran is complainant. Pet lost,
complainant lost. Unable to accept defeat, he wrote to the Estate
Management Office protesting the election of the petitioner; wrote to the other
home owners asking them not to recognize petitioner’s status. Afterwards,
numerous leaflets were spread ridiculing Sazon. In response, Sazon started
writing and circulating newsletters referring to complainant (hence complaint)
SC:
1. It is not the question of what the offender meant but what the words
used by him meant/conveyed.
2. When the imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need not prove
malice on the part of the defendant (for there is a presumption of malice Art
354).
3. Newsletter WAS NOT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION since the
readers (homeowners) were not vested with the power of supervision over the
private complainant or the authority to investigate the charges made against
the latter. Moreover, a written letter containing libelous matter cannot be
classified as privileged when it is published and circulated among
thepublic.
4. 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.
Vasquez vs. CA Sept. 15, 1999 September 15, 1999- Vasquez is a resident
of the Tondo Foreshore Area. After going to the National House Authority to
follow up on their complaint against their Barangay captain (herein
complainant OLDMEDO), he was interviewed by newspaper reporters. In the
article released by Ang Tinig ng Masa, he stated that Olmedo was corrupt and
the source of their problems regarding the land disputes. Hence, Olmedo filed
a complaint for libel.
SC:
1. Vasquez cannot claim to have been the source of only a few
statements in the article and point to the other parties as the source of the
rest since he admitted that he was correctly identified as the
spokesperson of the families during the interview.
2. Under Art. 361, if the defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and
truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an
acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
Case at bar: he did prove that what he said was INDEED true.
DOCTRINE: 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 actual malice.
Art 358 – Slander
What is slander?
Slander is oral defamation
Two Kinds of oral defamation
1. Simple slander
2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature
Factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation
1. The expressions used.
2. The personal relations of the accused and the offended party.
3. The circumstances surrounding the case.
Note: slander need not be heard by the offended party.