Title Thirteen  “Defamation” is the proper term for libel as used in

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Art. 353.

Chapter One. Libel  “Libel” strictly is a defamation committed by means

of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio,
Section One. Definition, forms and punishment of this phonograph …. or any similar means.
crime
 When the defamation is oral, it is called “slander”.
Article 353. Libel
Article 354. Requirement for publicity
Article 355. Libel by means of writings or similar  Seditious libel is punished not in this chapter but in
means Art. 142 (Inciting to sedition).
Article356. Threatening to publish and offer to
present such publication for a compensation  Test of defamatory character of words used: A
Article 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred charged is sufficient if the words are calculated to
to in the course of official proceedings induce the hearers to suppose and understand that
Article 358. Slander
the person against whom they were uttered was
Article 359. Slander by deed
guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach
Section Two. General Provisions his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to
Article 360. Persons responsible public ridicule.
Article 361. Proof of the truth
Article 362. Libelous remarks  The meaning of the writer is immaterial. It is
not the intention of the writer or speaker, or the
Chapter Two. Incriminatory Machinations understanding of the plaintiff or of any hearer or
Article 363. Incriminating innocent persons
reader by which the actionable quality of the
Article 364. Intriguing against honor
words is to be determined, but the meaning that
the words in fact conveyed on the minds of
persons of reasonable understanding, discretion
Article 353. Definition of Libel and candor, taking into consideration the
surrounding circumstances which were known to
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, the hearer or reader.
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstances tending  ELEMENT 1: IMPUTATION
to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a Examples:
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory * Imputation of a vice  imputing upon a person
of one who is dead. lascivious and immoral habits in an article
* Imputation of an act or omission  “X borrows
Elements: money without intention to pay, she had her breasts
1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or augmented without paying the doctor”
of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any * Imputation of condition, status or circumstance 
act, omission, condition, status, or calling another a bastard or mangkukulam
circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made publicly;  ELEMENT 2: PUBLICATION
3. It must be malicious;  Publication is the communication of the
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural defamatory matter to some third person or persons.
or juridical person, or one who is dead;  Hence, sending a latter in a sealed envelope
5. The imputation must tend to cause the through a messenger is not publication. But sending
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person to the wife, a letter defamatory of her husband, is
defamed. sufficient publication. (The person defamed is the
husband and the wife is already considered a 3 rd
There must be a defamatory imputation. The person)
imputation may cover: If the defamatory imputation is not published there
a. crime allegedly committed by the is NO crime. The law permits us to think as badly as
offended party; we please of our neighbors so long as we keep our
b. vice or defect, real or imaginary, of uncharitable thought to ourselves.
the offended party; or
c. any act or omission, condition,  ELEMENT 3: MALICE
status of, or circumstance relating  Malice is used to indicate that the offender is
to the offended party. prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks
merely to injure the reputation of the person
defamed.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

154
 Malice may be in-fact or in-law. character and reputation which were subsequently
 Malice in fact dismissed or closed for lack of merit and/or insufficiency of
evidence.
- must be proved by a showing of ill-will, hatred or
HELD: Petition dismissed. Qualified privilege
purpose to injure communication may be lost by proof of malice. The
 Malice in law prosecution should be given the opportunity of proving
- is presumed from a defamatory imputation  proof malice in view of petitioner's conduct towards private
of malice is not required respondent which casts doubt on his good faith.

 (The distinction exists for purposes of determining Agbayani vs. Sayo

WON there is defamation where privileged
communication is involved thus:) As a general rule, Mahinan, manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of the GSIS
malice in law is presumed from a defamatory at Cauayan, Isabela, file at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya a
imputation. But where privileged communication is complaint for written defamation against 4 subordinates.
involved, malice (in law) is NOT presumed  the The 4 accused filed a MTQ, contending that the CFI Nueva
Vizcaya has no jurisdiction over the case.
plaintiff must prove malice in fact. In either case,
where malice in fact is present, justifiable motives HELD: The proper venue of Mahinan’s criminal action
cannot exist and the imputations become actionable. against the petitioners is the CFI Isabela, since as GSIS
branch manager, he was a public officer stationed at
ELEMENT 4: IDENTIFICATION Cauayan, Isabela and that alleged libel was committed
 It must be shown that at least a 3 rd person could when he was in the public service.
identify the offended party as the object of the
libelous publication. Newsweek vs. IAC
 But libel published in different parts may be taken
together to establish the identification of the offended An article entitled “An Island of Fear” was published in
party. 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
ELEMENT 5: DISHONOR, DISCREDIT, CONTEMPT underpaid sugarcane laborers, but also brutalized and
 Dishonor – disgrace, shame, ignominy killed them with impunity. The sugarcane planters
Discredit – loss of credit or reputation; disesteem instituted a class action for libel.
Contempt – state of being despised
HELD: To maintain a libel suit, a victim must be
There are as many offenses as there were persons identifiable. Defamatory matter which does not reveal the
identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast
defamed (PP vs. Del Rosario). When the alleged affords no ground of action unless it can be shown that the
slanderous utterances were committed on the same readers of the libel could have identified the personality of
date and at the same place, but against two different the individual defamed. Defamatory remarks directed at a
persons, the situation has given rise to two separate group of persons is not actionable unless the statements
and individual causes for prosecution, with respect to are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to
each of the persons defamed. be identifiable.

Lacsa vs. IAC

Mercado vs. CFI
Lacsa and Marquez were officers of the Philippine
Petitioner was charged with libel for imputing to Mrs. Columbian Association. Lacsa uncovered a glitch in the
Virginia Mercado acts constituting enrichment thru corrupt qualification of Marquez to be president. He addressed a
practices. The offensive telegram which contained the letter to Marquez in the ff. tenor: that Marquez should step
allegations was addressed to the Secretary of the, down from the presidency, because the position is open
Department of Public Works and Communications only for proprietary members and Marquez has failed to
purportedly in line with President Marcos' appeal to the show any proof of his proprietary membership, that in view
public to give information on undesirable employees in the of these, he has been holding the position in a de facto
government service to achieve the objectives of the New capacity. This letter was published in the publication of the
Society. He filed an MTD on the ground of the telegram association.
being privileged communication. After the same was
denied, a MTQ, alleging that the facts charged do not HELD: The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a
constitute an offense, was filed but when the same again sentence into component phrases with the meticulous care
met with a denial, the present action was instituted to of the grammarian or stylist, but the import conveyed by
annul the aforesaid orders. Respondents, in their the entirety of the language to the ordinary reader. The
Comment, stressed there was absence of any privilege, SolGen is correct in holding that the imputation of being
there being malice and bad faith, petitioner having been called a de facto president is tantamount to being
motivated by vengeance and ill-will in making the said acknowledged as a pretender or impostor.
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

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

155
 Soriano vs. IAC
Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts
Soriano’s criminal liability was based on an article of public officers which are related to the discharge of
published in “The Guardian”, of which he is the editor. The their duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves
basis of the article was a press release prepared in that truth of the imputation (thus a form of privileged
Tacloban and delivered to various newspapers. The communication), but any attack on the private capacities
intended circulation of “The Guardian” is nationwide. The of a public officer clearly beyond the scope of his official
libel case was docked at the RTC Letye. Soriano filed n duties may constitute libel.
MTQ on the basis of improper venue. He argues that the
Leyte court had no jurisdiction because the publication Even if the article falls under the cloak of privileged
house of “The Guardian” was located in Quezon City and communications, it will not discount the fact that he wrote
that Tantuico also holds office in QC. the same with malice, due to grudges an ill-will attendant
in the circumstances surrounding the facts.
HELD: Local jurisprudence follow the “multiple
publication” rule – that each and every publication of the
same libel suit constitutes a separate offense, and warrants Vasquez vs. CA
a separate cause of action for filing a libel suit. However,
the publication requirement set forth by RPC360 refers to HELD: If the defamatory statement is made against a public
the “publication” (the official circulating organ) and not official with respect to the discharge of his official duties
the “press release”. In harmonizing RPC360 with the and functions and the truth of the allegation is shown, the
“multiple publication” rule, the “press release” is not the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he
document to be examined. Since the official publication is doesn’t prove that the imputation was published with good
produced in QC and was not proven to have been motives and for justifiable ends. (Because, upon proof of
produced/copied in Leyte or elsewhere, the trial should truth, the burden of proving that the offender acted with
have been handled by a QC court. malice would be on the public officer)

Actual Malice Rule – Even if the defamatory statement is

Bulletin vs. Noel false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct,
unless the public official concerned proves that the
The article contained statements to the effect that statement was made with knowledge that it was false or
American influence was a significant driver of the political with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
ascendancy of the Mindalanos of Lanao. Complainants
claimed this was an insulting statement that damaged the
social standing of the clan. Navarette vs. CA

HELD: The published work alleged to contain the libelous Petitioner claims that private respondent alluded to him
excerpt must be examined and viewed as a whole. Titles of when she said the words "stupid", "bastards", "swindlers",
royalty and nobility are not generally recognized or and "plunderers" while testifying on the Deed of Sale with
acknowledged socially in the national community. Personal Right of Repurchase subject of a civil case. In her Answer,
hurt or embarrassment, even if real, is not automatically private respondent cited decisions of the Supreme Court to
equivalent to defamation. The law against defamation the effect that no action for libel or for damages may be
protects the interest of a person in acquiring, retaining, founded on utterances made in the course of judicial
and enjoying a reputation as good as one’s character and proceedings.
conduct warrant in the community. It is the community
standards, not personal or family standards, that a court HELD: It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction that
must refer in evaluation a publication claimed to be statements made in the course of judicial proceedings
defamatory. 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
Santos vs. CA the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry. Thus, the
person making these statements such as a judge, lawyer or
The article published was a verbatim copy of a complained witness does not thereby incur the risk of being found
filed by Sandejas with the SEC against the brokerage firm liable thereon in a criminal prosecution or an action for the
of Carlos Sison. recovery of damages.

HELD: The public article is but a faithful reproduction of a The statements made during the course of judicial
pleading filed before a quasi-judicial body. There are no proceedings enjoy the shield of absolute privilege. The
embellishments, wild imputations etc. calculated to privilege is not intended so much for the protection of
damage the reputation of the offended parties and expose those engaged in the public service and in the enactment
them to public contempt. No valid cause of action to and administration of law, as for the promotion of public
institute an action for libel exists. 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
Sazon vs. CA functions without incurring the risk of a criminal
prosecution or an action for damages. In determining the
HELD: When the imputation is already held defamatory, issue of relevancy of statements made in judicial
malice on the part of the defendant (malice-in-fact) need proceedings, courts have adopted a liberal attitude by
not be proved because the law already presumes that the resolving all doubts in favor of relevancy.
imputation is malicious (malice-in-law).

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

156
Without question, the use of blatantly defamatory language HELD: The controversial paragraph is not libelous. First,
like "stupid", "bastards", "swindlers", and "plunderers" in the memo was part and parcel of the investigation on
describing the adverse parties detract from the honor and Fortich’s non-remittance of collections. Secondly, the
dignity that befits a court proceeding and should have been memo was notcirculated or publicized, much less read by
stricken out of the records. officers of the corporation other than those involved in the
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the investigation or those directly supervising the petitioner's
terms used by the private respondent in her pleading and in work. More importantly, Fortich was unable to prove that
her testimony cannot be the basis for an award of moral the issuance of the memo was motivated by malice.
damages and attorney's fees in favor of petitioner.
While malice is presumed in every defamatory imputation,
there are certain exceptions to this rule. The memo falls
Jalandoni vs. Drilon under the privileged communication rule. A privileged
communication is one made bona fide upon any subject
Respondents here were accused of printing libelous matter matter in which the party communicating has an interest,
in newspapers. The matter pertained to actions by or in reference to which he has a duty. In the case at bar,
Jalandoni as member of the PCGG alleged to be illegal and Galleron, being Fortich’s supervisor, was charged with the
unauthorized (sold certain shares of a company at duty to carry out and enforce company rules and policies,
undervalued prices to RCBC thereby defrauding the including the duty to undertake initial investigation of
government). Justice secretary reversed the findings of possible irregularities in customer accounts. The memo
prosecutors and dismissed the complaints. was an official act done in good faith, an honest innocent
statement arising from a moral and legal obligation which
HELD: Articles are not libelous. Articles merely stated the private respondent certainly owed to the company in
insinuations on the deal between RCBC and Jalandoni as the performance of his duties.
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, Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA
even if the statement is false, unless officer proves that it
was made with actual malice (with knowledge that it was Rafael filed an action for annulment of his marriage to
false or not). Teresita. Among the evidence presented by Rafael in the
trial court were several tape recordings of telephone
conversations between Teresita and unidentified persons.
Borjal vs. CA The recordings were obtained when Rafael allowed his
friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone.
Borjal wrote a series of articles in his column about a
certain “Edsa hero who is organizing conferences and HELD: Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and
seminars and soliciting money in the name of the President Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the
and DOTC secretary without the latter’s consent and Privacy of Communication, and for other purposes"
authority. Wenceslao filed a case for libel saying that he expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in
felt alluded to in the articles as the organizer and that he evidence. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the
was almost certain that it was him. telephone conversations allowed to recording of the same,
the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under
HELD: No libel. In libel, it is essential that the victim be Rep. Act No. 4200.
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 People v. Ogie Diaz (2007)
person.
The last element of libel is that the victim is identified or
CAB, no sufficient identification. Victim was not named,
identifiable from the contents of the libelous article. In
there were many Edsa heroes and many organizers of the
order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim
seminars. And even the victim was not absolutely sure that
be identifiable, although it is not necessary that the
it was him being alluded to.
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
Fortich vs. Galleron
from which others reading the article may know the person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous
Fortich is a salesman of San Miguel. His supervisor Galleron
circumstances so that those knowing such person could and
suspected him of misappropriating the collections he
did understand that he was the person referred to. Kunkle
received retailers and buyers, so an investigation was
v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule that this
conducted on the matter. Galleron submitted an inter-
requirement is complied with where a third person
office memorandum containing the results of his
recognized or could identify the party vilified in the
investigation. The memo was addressed to the Regional
article.
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 Article 354. Requirement for Publicity
cockfighting enthusiast. In spite of several advices, there
seems to be no change in his lifestyle. Also, respondent had
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
a similar case last September 11, 1978.”
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

157
justiable motice for making it is shown, except in the indecent liberties of women  private communication
following cases: in the performance of a moral duty  privileged!
1. A private communication made by any
person to another in the performance of any  Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith. So for
legal, moral, or social duty; example, if a copy of the complaint above is sent to a
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, newspaper for publication, the privilege is destroyed.
without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative, or other official  That the statement is a privileged communication
proceedings which are not of confidential is a matter of defense and, like all other matters of
nature, or of any statement, report or defense, must be established by the accused.
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of
any other act performed by public officers in  Tapos, if the accused sets up privileged
the exercise of their functions. communication as a defense, to overcome it, the
prosecutions must prove that (1) the defendant acted
 The two exceptions in Art. 354 are the so-called with malice in fact (because the privileged only
privileged communications. When privileged negates the presumption of malice in law), or (2)
communication is involved, malice in fact must be there is no reasonable ground for believing the
proved to convict the accused. charge to be true.

Illustration of “no reasonable ground for believing the

Illustration of Art. 354: A tells C that B is a thief. The charge to be true”: X admitted that he had personally
fact is B is really is a thief, because he was previously made no investigation with reference to the truth of
convicted of theft. Can it be presumed that the many of the statements made in the communication
imputation by B is malicious? Yes, because Art. 354 to the Secretary of Justice, especially with reference
says that “every defeamatory imputation is presumed to the statements based on rumors that a judge
to be malicious even if it be true.” received a bribe for dismissing a murder case.
But the presumption of malice is rebutted if A can
show (1) good intention and (2) justifiable motive for  RE: Par. 2 (Fair and true report of official
making the imputation. proceedings…)

Thus, if B is applying for a position of security guard  Defamatory remarks and comments on the
in the store of C, brother of A, and the purpose of A is conduct or acts of public officers which are related to
to protect his brother from undesirable employees, the discharge of their official duties will not constitute
then malice cannot be presumed. libel if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation. The conduct of public officers which are
 Two kinds of privileged communication: related to the discharge of their official duties are
(1) Absolute matters of public interest, and it is a defense to an
- not actionable, EVEN IF its author acted in bad action for libel or slander that the words complained
faith of are a fair comment on a matter of public interest.
- this class includes statements made by
members of Congress in the discharge of their What is a fair comment? If the comment is an
functions as such, allegations in pleadings made expression of an opinion, based upon proven facts,
by parties or their counsel, answers given by then it is no matter that the opinion happens to be
witnesses in reply to questions propounded to mistaken so long as it might be reasonably inferred
them (provided the answers are responsive and from the facts. Comment may be fair, although
the allegations are relevant) wrong.
- usually limited to legislative and judicial
proceedings and other acts of state  But any attack upon the private character of the
(2) Conditional or qualified public officer on matters which are not related to the
- not actionable UNLESS made with malice or discharge of their official functions, may constitute
bad faith libel. No one has the right to invade another’s privacy.
- this class includes those communications
mentioned as exceptions in Art. 354  Rule on self-defense – A person libeled is justified to
hit back with another libel. But the defamatory
 RE: Par. 1 (Private communication made by any statements made by the accused must be a fair
person to another…) answer to the libel made by the offended party and
must be related to the imputation made. The answer
Illustration: X files a complaint in good faith against a should not be unnecessarily libelous.
priest to his ecclesiastical superior allegedly for taking

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

158
Illustration: A to B, C & D: “You pimp, women of ill While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the
repute, thieves, paramours of my husband”. B to A: reasons behind the imposition of fine instead of
imprisonment applicable to petitioner’s case of libel. We
“You are a woman of the street, you smell bad, and
note that this is petitioner’s first offense of this nature.
your money was stolen from the PCAU” + C to A “You He never knew respondent prior to the demand letter
are shameless, blackmailer, murderer” + D to A “You sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his
have a thick face, you are not legally married, you are assistance thereto. He appealed from the decision of the
the paramour of Father Baluyut.” 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
Held: To repel attack, the defendant may make an
probation to evade prison term but he did not do so
explanation of the imputation, and it is only where, if believing that he did not commit a crime thus, he appealed
by explaining, he must of necessity have to use his case. We believe that the State is concerned not only in
scurrilous and slanderous remarks, that he may the imperative necessity of protecting the social
legally be allowed to do so without placing himself organization against the criminal acts of destructive
under criminal prosecution. Here, B, C, D’s remarks individuals but also in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends. Consequently,
were unnecessarily scurrilous.
we delete the prison sentence imposed on petitioner and
instead impose a fine of six thousand pesos.
Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or This is not the first time that we removed the penalty of
Similar Means imprisonment and imposed a fine instead in the crime of
libel. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals, petitioner was
A libel may be committed by means of - convicted of libel and was meted a penalty of
1. Writing; imprisonment and fine; and upon a petition filed with us,
we affirmed the findings of libel but changed the penalty
2. Printing;
imposed to a mere fine.
3. Lithography;
4. Engraving;
5. Radio;
6. Photograph;
7. Painting;
8. Theatrical exhibition; Article 356. Threatening to Publish and Offer
9. Cinematographic exhibition; or to Prevent Such Publication for A
10. Any similar means. Compensation

 Defamation through amplifier is not libel, but oral Acts punished

defamation. The word ‘radio’ should be considered 1.Threatening another to publish a libel concerning
in relation to the terms with which it is associated – him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other members
all of which have a common characteristic, namely, of his family;
their permanent nature as a means of publication. 2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for
 But defamation made in a TV program is libel. It compensation or money consideration.
easily qualifies under the general provision “or any
similar means”.  Blackmail - In its metaphorical sense, blackmail
may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money
Magno v. People (2006) by threats of accusation or exposure. Two words are
expressive of the crime - hush money.
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party
constitutes publication.  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
Buatis v. People (2006) publication of, a libel for compensation, under Article
356.
Facts: One lawyer sent another an insulting letter, in
closing saying, “Yours in Satan’s name”.

Held: There is publication in this case. In libel, publication Article 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts
means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, Referred to in the Course of Official
known to someone other than the person against whom it Proceedings
has been written. Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself
states that the same was copy furnished to all
Elements
concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the letter to his
secretary. It is enough that the author of the libel 1. Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of
complained of has communicated it to a third person. a newspaper, daily or magazine;
Furthermore, the letter, when found in the mailbox, was 2. He publishes facts connected with the
open, not contained in an envelope thus, open to public. private life of another;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

159
 3. Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue which other hold him, not the good opinion which he
and reputation of said person. has of himself.

 The provisions of Art. 357 constitute the so-called People vs. Pelayo
“Gag Law”. Newspaper reports on cases pertaining
Pelayo told Clapano (councilor), within the hearing of three
to adultery, divorce, issues about the legitimacy of
people, that in one of his investigations on illegal gambling,
children etc., will necessarily be barred from an operator, Lim Peng, told him Almendras (governor)
publication. received P500 from said operator as protection money. The
 The prohibition applies even though said following day, Pelayo delivered a privileged speech in the
publication be made in connection with or under the City Council’s session where it could be inferred that he
pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any was referring to Almendras as a “tong collector”.
judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such
HELD: Facts of the case do NOT constitute intriguing
facts have been mentioned. against honor where the source of the derogatory
information cannot be determined and defendant borrows
Illustration: A uttered defamatory remarks calling a the same without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it
priest a savage and that he had a concubine. While to others. The information allegedly came from a definite
the case was pending trial, a newspaper published source (Lim Peng) which he adopted as his, passed it to
another for the purpose of causing dishonor to the other’s
the complaint verbatim including the defamatory
reputation. The act is slander (light oral defamation).
expressions of A.

 RA1477 – The publisher, editor, columnist or Victorio vs. CA

reporter of any periodical of general circulation
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news Father and son Victorio were overheard by people to have
uttered defamatory words against Atty. Ruiz after a hearing
report or information appearing in said publication
where Atty. Ruiz moved for contempt of the counsel of
which was related in confidence to such publisher etc. Victorio. They were found guilty of Grave Oral Defamation.
unless the court or a House or committee of Congress
finds that such revelation is demanded by the security HELD: Oral defamation or slander has been defined as the
of the State, without prejudice to the publisher’s etc. speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to
liability under civil and criminal laws. 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
Article 358. Slander at the time, aside from the sense and grammatical meaning
of the defamatory words are considered as guidelines in
Slander is oral defamation. There are tow kinds of determining whether the offense is serious or slight.
oral defamation:
Attributing to a prominent lawyer a crime (estafa) is a
(1) Simple slander; and
serious and insulting imputation that strikes deep into the
(2) Grave slander, when it is of a character of the victim. No special circumstance need be
serious and insulting nature. shown for defamatory words to be considered grave oral
defamation.
 Factors that determine the gravity of oral
defamation: That defamatory words were uttered in the heat of anger
cannot lie where there was no reason or lawful cause to be
1. expressions used angry against Ruiz who was merely performing his duties
2. personal relations of the accused and the aw a lawyer in defense of client, and no provocation.
offended party
3. circumstances surrounding the case
People vs. Orcullo
Illustration of grave slander: “You sold the union. You
Judge Orcullo dismissed the case for oral defamation
swindled the money of the members and received against Peralta (she imputed adultery and prostitution
bribe money in the amount of P10K…” against Flores) on the ground that it was a private crime to
be instituted by the offended party. SC reinstated case for
Illustration of simple slander: An accusation that the trial.
offended party has been living successively and with
several men uttered before several persons, when HELD: The words said by Peralta are indubitably imputation
of the crime of prostitution, which can be prosecuted de
intended to correct an improper conduct of the oficio and not adultery. Connotation of hostess is
offended party, a kin of the accused, is only simple notoriously referred to prostitutes. Only when derogatory
slander. remarks clearly and categorically reflect the elements
 The slander need not be heard by the offended constituting adultery would the complainant for libel by
party, because a man’s reputation is the estimate in the offended party be necessary to commence prosecution

Villanueva v. People (2006)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

160
 from shame or humiliation caused by the
The Court does not condone the vilification or use of maltreatment, it is slander by deed.
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 Unjust vexation Slander by deed Acts of
view that the slander committed by petitioner can be lasciviousness
characterized as slight slander following the doctrine that Irritation or annoyance
uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with + With publicity + presence of the
some provocation on the part of the offended party, and dishonor or circumstances
constitutes only a light felony. contempt provided for in
RPC 335 on rape
(force or
Figeroa v. People (2006) intimidation,
unconscious etc.)
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature depends together with
on its scope, spirit and motive taken in their entirety, the lewd designs
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
People vs. Motita
alleged existing state of affairs at the aforementioned
public market because Rivera was not only specifically
Motita used a mirror to view reflection of private parts of
pointed out several times therein but was even tagged with
Letada. Crowd nearby were laughing with their eyes
derogatory names. Indubitably, this name-calling was, as
directed towards her.
correctly found by the two courts below, directed at the
very person of Rivera himself.
HELD: Crime committed was slander by deed.

Unjust vexation is committed when the offender’s act

Article 359. Slander by Deed caused annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress or
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
Elements directed. If there was attendant publicity and dishonor or
1. Offender performs any act not included in contempt in addition to the irrigation or annoyance,
offense would be slander by deed as in this case. If any of
any other crime against honor;
the circumstances provided for rape together with lewd
2. Such act is performed in the presence of designs were present in addition to the annoyance, the
other person or persons; offense would be act of lasciviousness.
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon the offended party.
Article 360. Persons responsible
Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not
use of words. The persons responsible for libel are:

Two kinds of slander by deed 1. The person who publishes, exhibits or

1. Simple slander by deed; and causes the publication or exhibition of any
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a defamation in writing or similar means;
serious nature. 2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
3. The editor or business manager of a daily
 What is slander by deed? It is a crime against honor newspaper magazine or serial publication;
which is committed by performing an act which casts 4. The owner of a printing plant which
dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. publishes a libelous article with his consent
and all other persons who in any way
Illustrations: slapping the face of another if the participate in or have connection with its
intention is to cause shame and humiliation, fighting publication.
another with intention to humiliate him
Venue of criminal and civil actions for damages in
 vs. Acts of lasciviousness cases of written defamations (In case one of the
Kissing a girl in public and touching her breasts offended parties is a private individual)
without lewd designs, committed by a rejected suitor
to cast dishonor on the girl is slander by deed NOT 1. Where the libelous article is printed and first
acts of lasciviousness. published; or
2. Where any of the offended parties actually
 vs. Maltreatment resides at the time of the commission of the
The nature and effects of the maltreatment determine offense.
the crime committed. If the offended party suffered

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

161
 Where one of the offended parties is a public Illustration: A said that B, a gov’t official, was in the
officer, the action shall be filed in the CFI (1) of the habit of drinking during office hours and that he was
province or city where he held office at the time of always in a boisterous condition. Is proof of truth
the commission of the offense OR (2) where the allowed in case B should file a complaint against A for
libelous article is printed and first published. defamation? Yes. Both public interest and the good of
the service demand that a drunkard be barred from
 The civil action shall be filed in the same cdourt the service. But when the imputation involves the
where the criminal action is filed and vice versa. private life of B which is not related to the discharge
of his official duties, the offender cannot prove the
 The court where the criminal action or civil action truth thereof.
for damages is 1st filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the
exclusion of other courts. Another illustration: A made several imputations
against C, a private individual, some of which
 If the defamation consists in the imputation of a insinuated the commission of crimes and some did
crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio (adultery, not. Is proof of truth allowed? It depends. The
concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of defendant will be allowed to prove the truth of the
lasciviousness), then the offended party must a imputations constituting crimes but he will not be
complaint. allowed to prove the truth of the imputations not
constituting crimes.
 RE: DAMAGES recoverable
 Actual damages need not be proved, at least (1)  DEFENSE in defamation, requisities:
where the publication is libelous per se or (2) when 1. Truth
the amount of the award is more or less nominal, 2. Matter was published with good motives
because libel, by its nature, causes injury to the 3. For justifiable ends
reputation of the offended party.
 There is no remedy for damages for slander or  Retraction may mitigate damages. But in order to
libel in case of absolutely privileged communication. 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
Article 361. Proof of the truth occasioned thereby.

In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may

be given in evidence to the court and if it appears Article 362. Libelous remarks
that the matter charged as libelous is true, and,
moreover, that it was published with good motives Libelous remarks or comments connected with the
and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354,
acquitted. if made with malice, shall not exempt the author
thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or newspaper from criminal liability.
omission not constituting a crime shall not be
admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made  Thus, the author of a publication who distorts or
against the Government employees with respect to discolors official proceedings reported by him, or adds
facts related to the discharge of their duties. comments thereon to cast aspersion on the character
of the parties concerned, is guilty of libel,
In such cases, if the defendant proves the truth of the notwithstanding that the defamatory matter is
imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. published in connection with a privileged matter.

Proof of truth is admissible in any of the following:

Article 363. Incriminating Innocent Persons
1. When the act or omission imputed
constitutes a crime regardless of whether the Elements
offended party is a private individual or a 1. Offender performs an act;
public officer; 2. By such an act, he incriminates or imputes to
2. When the offended party is a Government an innocent person the commission of a
employee, even if the act or omission crime;
imputed doesn’t constitute a crime, 3. Such act does not constitute perjury.
provided, it is related to the discharge of his
official duties.  This article is limited to “planting” evidence and
the like, which do not in themselves constitute false

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

162
prosecutions but tend directly to cause false is a case of entrapment not planting of evidence. The
prosecution. conclusion is based on the following:
(1) The subpoena was illegally issued;
(2) The Motion to Quash Hold Departure Order and the
Incriminating an Perjury by making false Order of Cancellation of the Hold Departure Order were
innocent person accusation prepared and typewritten by the respondent; and
Committed by performing an The gravamen is the (3) The Money used in the entrapment operation was
act by which the offender imputation itself, falsely recovered from one of the left drawers of the respondent's
directly incriminates another made before an officer table.
Limited to the act of planting Giving of false statement
evidence under oath or making a false
affidavit, imputing to Article 364. Intriguing against Honor
another the commission of a
crime
This crime is committed by any person who shall
make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose
Incriminatory Defamation
machinations to blemish the honor or reputation of another person.
Offender doesn’t avail Words, written or spoken,
himself of written or spoken are availed of Incriminating an Intriguing against Honor
words in besmirching the innocent person
victim’s reputation Offender performs an act by Offender resorts to an
Not required Imputation must be public which he directly intrigue for the purpose of
and malicious & must be incriminates or imputes to blemishing the honor or
calculated to cause the an innocent person the reputation of another person
dishonor, discredit or commission of a crime
contempt of the aggrieved
party Defamation Intriguing against Honor
Done by availing directly of Committed by means which
spoken words consists of some tricky and
People vs. Alagao ex., gossiping secret plot

Is there a complex crime of incriminating an innocent person Slander Intriguing against Honor
through unlawful arrest? The source of the info can The source or the author of
be pinpointed and the the derogatory info cannot
HELD: Yes. The two acts imputed to the accused closely defendant, adopting as his be determined and the
followed each other, the unlawful arrest being a necessary own the information he has defendant borrows the
means to plant the incriminatory evidence. Under the obtained, passes the same same, and without
circumstances of the case, the accused had to arrest M to another for the purpose subscribing to the truth
because it was the only way that they could with facility of causing dishonor to thereof, passes it to others
detain him, search his person or effects and, commingle complainant’s reputation
therewith the marked peso bill. A complex crime was
committed. REPUBLIC ACT No. 4200

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING

Huggland vs. Lantin AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY
OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Judge Lantin was arrested for bribery for allegedly having
received marked money amounting to P5,000 from one
It shall be unlawful:
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 a) for any person, not being authorized by all the
order issued against Ms. Huggland. The issue is whether parties to any private communication or spoken
this is case of entrapment or planting of evidence. word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
HELD: This is a case of entrapment. Let us distinguish intercept, or record such communication or
entrapment from planting of evidence. In entrapment, the spoken word by using a device commonly known
criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or
originates in the mind of the accused and the law walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of otherwise described;
the offense, the accused cannot justify his conduct. b) for any person, be he a participant or not in the
Planting of evidence or incriminating innocent person is act or acts penalized in the next preceding
committed by performing an act by which the offender sentence, (1) to knowingly possess any tape
directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
commission of a crime. record, or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after the
From the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited
by the parties, there is reason to believe that indeed, this by this law; or (2) to replay the same for any

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

163
 Pinto was arrested for extortion. But Gaanan and Laconico
other person or persons; or (3) to communicate
were charged with violation of RA4200 and found guilty by
the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing,
the lower court.
or (4) to furnish transcriptions thereof , whether
complete or partial, to any other person. HELD: The phrase “any other device or arrangement” in the
Provided, That the use of such record or any Ant-Wiretapping Law doesn’t cover an extension line. The
copies thereof as evidence in any civil, law refers to a tap of a wire or cable or the use of a device
criminal investigation or trial of offenses, or arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
shall not be covered by this prohibition; intercepting or recording the communication. There must
c) for any person who willfully or knowingly does or be the physical interruption through a wiretap or the
who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order
the acts declared to be unlawful or who violates to overhear, intercept or record the spoken words. The
the provisions of the following section or of any extension here was not installed for the purpose but for
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or ordinary office use. Also, an extension phone is an
causes such violation. instrument which is very common, not what the law refers
to in which the presence of such devices cannot be
It is not unlawful: presumed by the party being overheard.

a) for any peace officer, who is authorized by a

written order of the Court, to execute any of the Ramirez vs. CA
acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving the
crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and Ramirez field a civil case for damages against Garcia. IN
disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the support of her claim, she produced a verbatim transcript of
high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to the confrontation with Garcia where the latter allegedly
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, vexed, insulted and humiliated her. The transcription on
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, which the civil case was based was culled from a tape
recording of the confrontation made by petitioner. As a
kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
result of the recording, Garcia filed a criminal case against
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,
Ramirez for violation of RA 4200.
punishing espionage and other offenses against
national security: Provided, That such written
HELD: The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
order shall only be issued or granted upon sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party
written application and the examination other than or different from those involved in the private
under oath or affirmation of the applicant communication. The statute’s intent to penalize all persons
and the witnesses he may produce and a unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the
showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds use of the qualifier “any”. Consequently, as respondent CA
to believe that any of the crimes enumerated correctly concluded, even a person privy to a
hereinabove has been committed or is being communication who records his private conversation with
committed or is about to be committed: another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify
Provided, however, That in cases involving the as a violator under the provisions of RA4200. The
offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to lawmakers contemplated to make illegal unauthorized
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, taped recording of private conversation or communication
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to taken by either of the parties themselves of by third
sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon persons. The nature of the conversation is immaterial for
prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as conviction of the crime and communication as used
the case may be, have actually been or are being includes conversation.
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.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

164