TITLE THIRTEEN

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

The Crimes against honor:
1. Libel by means of writings or similar means [art. 355]
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation [art. 356]
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings [art. 357]
4. Slander [art. 358]
5. Slander by deed [art. 359]
6. Incriminating innocent person [art. 363]
7. Intriguing against honor [art. 364]

Art. 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 circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Libel vs defamation
Libel printed or published defamatory statements
Defamation verbal or oral defamation
ELEMENTS:
1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
status or circumstance
2. That the imputation must be made publicly
3. That it must be malicious
4. That the imputation must be directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed
First element: there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, status or circumstance
Imputation of a crime
Kana siya pusher na, adik-adik
Kabit ka sa akong bana concubinage
Imputation of a vice or defect, real or imaginary
Kana siya palahubog
Imputation of any status
Bayot ka
kana siya anak ug smuggler
kana siya unggog
Imputation of any Act or Omission
sige panghuman walay bayad2x
Imputation of any circumstance
kana siya sige na kahagbong sa BAR
IMPORTANT: Praise undeserve is libel in disguise Ka bryt biya nimo
Second Element: the imputation must be made publicly
PUBLICATION there is publication when somebody has read or heard the defamatory article or statements and
that he can identify that the person defamed or the offended party.
Vasquez vs CA, September 15, 1999 there is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not
required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third
person has read or heard the libelous statement, for a mans reputation is the estimate in which others hold him,
not the good opinion which he has of himself.

UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 1

The accused signed and sent a letter to the offended party charging the latter with having illicit relations with her
husband. Can the accused be held liable for libel?
if you send a letter and the envelope is sealed NO PUBLICATION
if you send a letter and the envelope is open there is publication, and could be held liable for libel.
BORJAL vs CA, 301 SCRA 1 - In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it
is not necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person
attacked or defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the
libelous publication.

Third Element: the Publication must be MALICIOUS

Malice is a term used to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not
in response to duty, but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed.
Remember in the crime of theft, the moment the prosecution proves that there is taking of personal property
belong to another and that the taking was unlawful, intent to gain is presumed. In other words, there is no need for
the prosecution to present evidence that the accused has the intent to gain because the moment the prosecution
was able to prove that there was unlawful taking of personal property, intent to gain is presumed.
Also in DEFAMATION or LIBEL the moment the prosecution is able to prove that the imputation is defamatory, at
that instance, at that very moment, MALICE is PRESUMED [malice in law]. So the prosecution will only prove that
words which are defamatory were uttered or published, MALICE IS PRESUMED.
However, it can be rebutted. As this presumption is not conclusive, you remember your evidence there are only 2
presumptions conclusive and disputable presumption, this presumption here is only rebuttable. The accused can
present evidence to refute this presumption.
And what is this evidence all about that he can present in order to erase the presumption of malice? [see: art. 354].
2 kinds of Malice:
1. Malice in Fact which may be shown by proof of ill-will, hatred or purpose to injure.
Example:
There was an existing strain relationship between the parties prior to the publication.
Undue publicity like when you filed a criminal case against the offender and you even called a
press-conference to make it known to the public that the offender is really a criminal or culprit. But
even if the publication is injurious, the presumption of malice disappears upon proof of good
intention and justifiable motive.
2. Malice in law is presumed from a defamatory imputation. Proof of malice is not required, because it is
presumed to exist from the defamatory imputation. But even if the publication is injurious, the
presumption of malice disappears upon proof of good intention and justifiable motive.
Art. 354 [par.1] every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
Absolutely privileged communication vs qualifiedly privileged communication
A privileged communication may either be absolutely privileged communication or qualifiedly privileged.
Absolutely privileged communication
Qualifiedly privileged
Absolutely privileged communication are those which Qualifiedly privileged communication containing
are not actionable even if the author has acted in bad defamatory imputations are not actionable unless found
faith.
to have been made without good intention or justifiable
motive. To this genre belong private communications
Example:
and fair and true report without any comments or
Sec. 11 Art. VI of 1987 Constitution which remarks.
exempts a member of Congress from liability for
any speech or debate in Congress or in any Here, the offended party may have the opportunity to
prove malice in fact.
committee thereof.
Example:
You complained to the Cardinal that Imong
asawa g.kabit mao aning Paria samtan ikaw tu.a
sa abroad. You are imputing defamatory
statement against the parish priest. But could
UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 2

you be held liable? Answer is no. because this is

a form conditional or qualifiedly privileged
communication.

Fourth element: the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead
Borjal vs CA identification is grossly inadequate when even the alleged offended party is himself unsure that he
was the object of the verbal attack.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that he 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 other reading the article may know the plaintiff was
intended, or if he is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that person knowing him could and did understand
that he was the person referred to [Corpus vs Cuaderno Sr. 16 SCRA 807].
Where the article is impersonal on its face and interpretation of its language does not single out individuals, the
fourth essential requisites of the offense of libel does not exist [Uy Tico vs Yang Shu Wen, 32 phil 624].
Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is not actionable unless the statement are all-embracing or
sufficiently specific for the victim to be identifiable.
Purpose must be to injure the reputation of the offended party
If the chief of police in good faith filed a complaint against X for illegal possession of paraphernalia for falsification
and after trial X was acquitted, the chief of police is not liable for libel, because the imputation of a crime was
merely an incident in the making of the complaint intended to cause the punishment of a violation of the law.
However, should there be undue publication, like calling a press conference which is not necessary, informing the
public that X is a criminal, that would constitute injury to the reputation of X. therefore, a libel case could prosper.
Fifth Element: the imputation must ten to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of the offended party
Any imputation will be sufficient if it tends to cause
a. The dishonor,
b. Discredit, or
c. Contempt of a natural or juridical person
d. To blacken the memory of one who is dead
Meaning of:
1. Dishonor disgrace, shame or ignominy
2. Discredit loss of credit or reputation, disesteem
3. Contempt state of being despised
Jurisprudence:
1. Borja vs CA, 301 SCRA 1
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that
he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person attacked or
defamed, but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the object of the libelous
publication.
Identification is grossly inadequate when even the alleged offended party is himself unsure that he was the
object of the verbal attack.
In order that discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false
allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion,
based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, so long as it
might reasonably be inferred from the facts.
2. Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc vs AMEC, January 17, 2005
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act or
omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
There is no question that the broadcast were made public and imputed to AMEC defects or circumstances
tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt. Rima and Alegres remarks such as greed for money
UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 3

on the part of AMECs administrations; AMEC is a dumping ground, garbage of x x x moral and phsycial
misfits; and AMEC students who graduate will be liabilities rather than assets of society are LIBELOUS
PER SE. taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest that AMEC is a money-making institution where physically
and morally unfit teachers abound.
True, AMEC is a private learning institution whose business of educating students is genuinely imbued with
public interes. The welfare of the youth in general and AMECs student in particular is a matter which the
public has the right to know. Thus, similar to the newspaper articles in BORJAL, the subject broadcasts dealt
with matters of public interest. However, unlike in borjal, the questioned broadcasts are not based on
established facts. The record supports the following findings of the trial court: x x x had the comments been
an expression of opinion based on established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be
mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. However, the comments of RIMA and
ALEGRE were not backed up by facts. Therefore, the broadcasts are not privileged and remain libelous per
se.
Under the principle of NEUTRAL REPORTAGE, a publisher who accurately and disinterestedly reports certain
defamatory statements against public figures is shielded from liability, regardless of the republishers
subjective awareness of the truth or falsity of the accusation; the privilege of neutral reportage applies
where the defamed person is a public figure who is involved in an existing controversy, and a party to that
controversy makes the defamatory statement.
Doctrine of fair comment fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a
valid defense in an action for libel or slander.
Art. 354 Requirement for publicity Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
[so called privileged communication]
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social
duty; and
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.
Jurisprudence:
3. Doctrine of fair comment [applicable to commentators] means that while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is
judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious nevertheless, when the discreditable
imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.
Discussion:
Also in DEFAMATION or LIBEL the moment the prosecution is able to prove that the imputation is defamatory, at
that instance, at that very moment, MALICE is PRESUMED [malice in law]. So the prosecution will only prove that
words which are defamatory were uttered or published, MALICE IS PRESUMED.
However, it can be rebutted. As this presumption is not conclusive, you remember your evidence there are only 2
presumptions conclusive and disputable presumption, this presumption here is only rebuttable. The accused can
present evidence to refute this presumption.
And what is this evidence all about that he can present in order to erase the presumption of malice? The accused
can present evidence of good intention and justifiable motive for making the defamatory imputation.
For example: GOOD INTENTION AND JUSTIFIABLE MOTIVE
1. You told your brother, Kana si A kawatan na siya that is defamatory. The moment that it is prove that
indeed you have uttered such defamatory statement, then malice [intent to injure his reputation] is
presume.
But that can be rebutted if you can present proof of good intention and justifiable motive. For example, you
said: Ayaw na siya ehire ug pakasecurity guard kay kawatan na. do you have good intention in saying that
UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 4

defamatory statement. That is you moral duty to caution your own brother not to hire that person because
that person is a theft.
So with good intention and justifiable motive, you could not be convicted of libel, if it is in writing or oral
defamation if it is oral.
So every defamatory statement is presume malicious, however, there are instances that this presumption of malice
does not apply. In what instances that this presumption of malice does not apply?
Presumption of malice does not apply under the following:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social
duty.
A private communication made by any person to another is a privileged communication, when the following
requisites are present:
1. That the person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to make the
communication, or, at least, he had an interest to be upheld;
2. That the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in
the matter
3. That the statements in the communication are made in good faith without malice[in fact]
For example:
LEGAL - You are ordered by your superior to make a report. So naturally, any defamatory statements that
were included in your report would not make you held liable for libel because you are merely complying a
legal duty, you are complying the order of your superior.
This is what we called CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION.

MORAL - For example you write a letter complaint to the Cardinal. You are going to file a complaint against
a parish priest regarding the acts of your parish priest. For example, you complain to the Cardinal that
Imong asawa g.kabit mao aning Paria samtan ikaw tu.a sa abroad. You are imputing defamatory
statement against the parish priest. But could you be held liable? Answer is no. because this is a form
conditional or qualifiedly privileged communication. Presumption of malice does not apply.
In that instant, it is not just only your moral but as well as your legal duty in making that communication.
Kung dili man gani ang imong asawa maoy gkabit. Lain man. You are still in the exercise of you moral duty in
making that communication to the cardinal.

SOCIAL you are making a complaint against the teacher of your son or daughter to the principal. That is
your social duty. Regarding for example an illegal collection.

Then you will ask, considering that presumption of malice does not apply in a qualifiedly or conditional privileged
communication, could the author of the defamatory statements no longer be convicted for libel? Is there no
possibility that the author could be convicted of libel? There is still a possibility. If you can prove ACTUAL MALICE or
MALICE IN FACT. If you can present evidence of malice.
Earlier we said that every defamatory statements malice is presumed. Therefore, you no longer have to present
evidence of malice. But in a qualifiedly or conditional privileged communication, considering that malice is not
anymore presumed. Then if you want to convict the accused of liable or defamation then you have to present
evidence regarding the existence of malice and we call this malice in fact.
So present Malice in fact to hold the accused liable for the defamatory statements uttered.
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
In order that the publication of a report of an official proceeding may be considered privileged, the following
conditions must exist:
1. 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 speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by a public officer in the exercise of his functions;
UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 5

2. That it is made in good faith; and

3. That it is without any comments or remarks
For example:
1. Somebody files a rape case against a city mayor. Unya g.report sa media. Tanan HEADLINE. Can the mayor file a
libel case against this reporters and publishers? Answer is no. because it fair and true report. Diha man jud
tinod.anay na g.file and it must be WITHOUT ANY COMMENT. So kung unsay gisuwat sa AFFIDAVIT maoy imong
e.quote sa imong newspaper or sa TV sa imong pagreport.
So if the person being defamed filed a case for libel against the reporter or publisher, the same would not
prosper because this is a qualifiedly privileged communication wherein malice is not presumed.
2. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Sa court, you cannot be held liable for libel diha sa imong mga motions, diha sa imong mga answer. For
example, an information charging you with Murder or rape is filed against you. And you file a counter-affidavit
and in that counter-affidavit you state that the accusation is false, baseless, fabricated, concocted. Are you not
imputing a crime against the complainant by saying that the complaint filed is false? You are imputing a crime,
the crime of perjury. Is it not?
Can the complainant, the rape victim in this case, file libel case against you based on your affidavit? Answer
is no. because that is a privileged communication. That your statement is relevant to the pending case.
But if you put defamatory statement not relevant to the case or incident, then you could be held liable for
liable.
Note: Allegations and averments in pleadings are absolutely privileged so long as it is relevant or
pertinent to the issues of the case.
3. Doctrine of fair comment [applicable to commentators] means that while in general every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially
proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is
directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such
discreditable imputation may be actionable there must be actual malice.
How about the commentators? Are they covered by this provision?
In that case of Borja vs CA, the SC reiterated the doctrine of fair comment. The enumeration under art. 354
regarding conditional privileged communication is not exclusive. The SC added this Doctrine of Fair comment. So
kung dili ka reporter, commentator ra ka, igo ra ka ni commentary sa report. Your statement could be considered as
qualifiedly privileged communication under the doctrine of fair comment.
In Borjal vs CA the SC said the enumeration under art. 354 of the RPC is not an exclusive list of a qualifiedly
privileged communication since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged.
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 actual malice that is, with knowledge that it was false
or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Vasquez vs CA, 314 SCRA 460).
Tulfo vs Pp, September 16, 2008 the trial court found that tulfo had in fact written and published the subject
articles with reckless disregard of whether the same were false or not, as proven by the prosecution. There was the
finding that Tulfo failed to verify the information on which he based his writings, and that the defense presented no
evidence to show that the accusations against Atty. So were true. Tulfo cannot argue that because he did not know
the subject, Atty. So, personally, there was no malice attendant in his articles. The test laid down is the reckless
disregard test, and Tulfo has failed to meet the test.
Again, in a qualifiedly privileged communication, does it mean that the accused cannot be held any more for liable
because presumption of malice does not anymore apply? Answer is no. he could still be held liable for libel if the
offended party can prove the existence of actual malice meaning that the accused knew that his statement his
false or that the false statement was made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

For example, ikaw karon kay usa ka commentarista. Dunay nakahunghung nimo na kana si X corrupt or
kawatan. Unya g.diretso dayon nimo g.yawyaw didto sa microphone without verifying kung unsa ni
ka.tinuod maong report. Are you liable? Yes. because you did not verify yet how true the accusation. Mao
UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 6

nay gtawag ug with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Or nakahibaw naka na false nato,
imo pa jud gpublish. So bad faith.
The more you could be liable for libel, if the offended party can present evidence na kadto siya bsan false,
iya tong gsulti kay naglagot siya sa offended party. It was done with hatred or revenge.
Guinguing vs CA, September 30, 2005 the actual malice rule applies not only to public officials but also to public
figures.
Public figures has been defined as a person who, by his accomplishments, fame or mode of living, or by
adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affiars, and his
character, has become a public personage. He is in other words, a celebrity.
Obviously to be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by
appearing before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball player, a pugilist, or any
other entertainer. The list is however broader than this. It includes public officers, famous inventors and
explorers, war heroes and even ordinary soldiers, an infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Grand
Exalted Rule of a lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is
focused upon him as a person.
So for example, kana si kris Aquino dunay comment about niya. Maka.ingon ba siya na libelous ba na ang maong
statement? Now, kris Aquino could be considered a celebrity. so malevel siya sa public officer. And if you are a
public officer or government employee you are like a public property. you are always subject to scrutiny. And even
your private life would be scrutinized.
For example, you have a complaint but you called a press conference. That could be considered as actual malice.
Although you are making a communication to redress your greivances whereby that is considered as conditional
privileged communication and therefore malice is not presume but by your act of calling a press conference, that
could be used as proof malice in fact. You have an intent to injure.
But if you did not call for a press conference, and the reporters just wanted to get your comment about the
complaint. You cannot be held liable because dili man ikaw mismo nanawag nila. There should be no undue
publicity.
Fair comments on qualifications of candidates
Kanang mo.ingon ka kana si nonoy autistic. Could you be held liable for libel?
Public acts of public men may lawfully be made the subjects of comment and criticism. If made in good faith, such
criticism is privileged.
The mental, moral and physical fitness of candidates for public office may be the object of comment and criticism.
But if it appears that it was actuated by actual or express malice, and is defamatory in its nature, the comment or
criticism constitutes a criminal libel [US vs Sedano, 14 Phil 338].
The policy of a public official may be attacked rightly or wrongly A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the
intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. The public officer may suffer a hostile and an unjust accusation;
the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience.
For example: X is a public officer. Y made defamatory statements against X. Y said: Gi.unay ni X ang iyang
kaugalingon anak ug iyot. Does it have connection with his public acts? That is private life. Y could be held liable for
libel.
The person libeled is justified to hit back with another libel.
Can a person libeled hit back with another libel?
GENERAL RULE [GR]: no.
Exception: if you are being libeled and you explain libelous statement and in the process of the explanation you
made a libelous statement about the author then that would be justifiable.

For example, you are imputed with the crime of graft and corruption. Unya sa imong pagexplain na dili ka
corrupt na.apil to siya. Like you will say: ngano corrupt man ko, na kana siya mao man gani ang akong
treasurer. Mugawas ba di ay nang kwarta kung dili approbahan sa treasurer. So in explaining your side, na
nakapa.uwow ka niya then that would be justifiable.
UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 7

Pero kung pag.ingon niya: Kana siya corrupt. Imo pud siya g.ingnan na: ikaw kay palahubog, bogo then
you could be held liable. You cannot hit back another libel.
Note: retaliation or vindictiveness cannot be a basis of self-defense in defamation.
Art. 355. Libel by means of writing or similar means A libel may be committed by means of:
1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithograpy
4. Engraving
5. Radio
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical exhibition
9. Cinematographic exhibition
10. Or any similar means
TV is included
Amplifier oral defamation
Text libel or oral defamation or grave threats? For example, you received a txt message saying:
BOANG KA, BOGO kang dako. No decision yet.
Penalty: prision correccional minimum and medium or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos or both, in addition
to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.
Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both shall be imposed upon any person who
threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family
of the latter, or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or
money consideration.
Acts punished:
1. By threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other members of
family
2. By offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation or money consideration.
This is a form of BLACKMAIL
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?
1. Light threats [art. 283]
2. Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for compensation [art. 356]
Light threats vs Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for compensation.
Light threats [art. 283]
Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the
publication of, a libel for compensation [art. 356]
Elements:
Acts punished:
1. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong
1. By threatening another to publish a libel
2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime
concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or
3. That there is a demand for money or that other
other members of family
condition is imposed, even though not unlawful
2. By offering to prevent the publication of such
4. That the offender has attained his purpose or, that
libel for compensation or money consideration.
he has not attained his purpose.
Note: he is asking for money so that he will not publish
or print the libel. If he was asking for money and his
demands was other than to publish or print the libel.
Then that would be light threats.

UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 8

Art. 357 prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings Penalty: arresto mayor or a fine of from 200 to 2,000 or both
Any reporter, editor, or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the
private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue, and reputation of said person, even though said
publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or
administrative proceedings wherein facts have been mentioned.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper daily or magazine
2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another
3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person.
Theprovisions of art. 357 constitute the so called GAG LAW newspapers reports on cases pertaining to adultery,
divorce, issues about the legitimacy of children, etc., will necessarily be barred from publication.
For example: the Mayor or Governor has a pending annulment case filed in court. that cannot be published because
it has something to do with her or his private life.
But if she is a public officer and a case for adultery is filed against her in court. and she is absent always in her work.
So pwede na nimo epublish. Kay iyang pagka.absenero tungod di ay sa iyang pagpangabit. Mao di ay sige ka ug
absent kay sige di ay ka ug iring2. Libelous? Not libelous because it has a connection with the duties of the public
officer concern.
For example: X is a public officer. Y made defamatory statements against X. Y said: Gi.unay ni X ang iyang
kaugalingon anak ug iyot. Does it have connection with his public acts? That is private life. Y could be held liable for
libel.
Art. 358 Slander ORAL DEFAMATION
Oral defamation shall be punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos.
Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. The term oral defamation or slander as
now understood, 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.
2 kinds of oral defamation:
1. Simple slander arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200
2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature arresto mayor to prision correccional in its
minimum
Factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation:
1. Upon the expression used
2. On the personal relations of the accused and the offended party
3. The circumstances surrounding the case
4. Social standing and the position of the offended party
a. Offended party is a MAYOR or GOVERNOR
Factors that may determine that it is just a simple slander:
1. Words were uttered in the heat of anger
2. With some provocation on the part of the offended party
Example: serious kay ka nagtuon, unya naay klasmyt nimo na nagkulitkulit nimo. Nakasulti ka ug
mga vulgar words. simple slander
3. Defamation uttered in political meeting, considering that it was committed on the eve of the elections
when everyone was excited and when feelings were running high, is only simple slander.
You pointed a dirty finger SIMPLE SLANDER BY DEED
Mayor did not signed or approved the leave of absence filed by the Councilor. The councilor pointed dirty
finger to the Mayor. What is the crime committed? Simple slander by deed.

UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 9

Villanueva vs Pp, April 10, 2006 Pointing a dirty finger ordinarily connotes the phrase FUCK YOU, which
is similar to the expression Puta or Putang ina mo, in local parlance, an expression not held to be libelous
in reyes vs Pp, 27 SCRA 686.
Petitioners act of pointing a dirty finger at complainant constitutes simple slander by deed, it appearing
from the factual milieu of the case that the act complained of was employed by petitioner to express
anger or displeasure at complainant for procrastinating the approval of his leave monetization. While it
may have cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon complainant, said act is not of a serious nature, thus,
the penalty shall be arresto menor meaning, imprisonment from one day to 30 days or a fine not exceeding
200.

Art. 359 Slander by deed

Penalty:
1. Simple slander by deed arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
2. Grave slander by deed arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum
Slander by deed is a crime against honor which is committed by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit
or contempt upon another person.
Elements:
1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor
2. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party
Slapping the face of another is slander by deed if the intention of the accused is to cause shame and humiliation.
Example: Husband was caught by his wife having lunch with another woman. The wife slap the face of the husband.
The crime committed is slander by deed. The same was made in the presence of other persons. The purpose is to
put to shame.
Babae na opawan. That is slander by deed.
If it is already serious or less serious physical injuries there is no more slander by deeds. The putting of you to
shame is only aggravating.
Art. 360. Persons responsible for libel 1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or
similar means
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial publication
4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other persons
who in any way participate in or have connection with its publication
A, a woman, sent love letter to B, a man, containing very intimate expression of sentiment. To a third person the
contents of said letter would be ridiculous. B, after breaking his relation with A, published the letter. Is B liable for
libel? Yes. The prime requisite of the crime of libel is not necessarily the composing of the article, but the publishing
of it.
Tulfo vs People Sept. 16, 2008 The claim that they[publishers, editors] had not participation does not shield
them from liability. The provision of the RPC does not provide absence of participation as a defense, but rather
plainly and specifically states the responsibility of those involved in publishing newspapers and other periodicals. It
is not a matter of whether or not they conspired in preparing and publishing the subject articles, because the law
simply so states that they are liable as they were the author.
Neither the publisher nor the editors can disclaim liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply
saying they had no participation in the preparation of the same. They cannot say that Tulfo was all alone in the
publication of Remate, on which the subject articles appeared, when they themselves clearly hold position of
authority in the newspaper, or in the case of Pichay, as the president in the publishing company.

PENALTY FOR LIBEL: prision correccional minimum and medium [it does not exceed 6yrs]
Supposed to be it should be filed in the FIRST LEVEL COURT but under our present law and jurisprudence, it
should be filed with the RTC. Only RTC has jurisdiction over libel.
UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 10

Venue of criminal and civil actions in cases of written defamation [LIBEL]:

The criminal and civil actions for damages in case of written defamation shall be filed simultaneously or separately
with the court of first instance of the province or city
1. Where the libelous article is printed and first published; or
2. Where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense
If the offended party is a public officer
1. If the offended party is holding office in the city of Manila the action shall be filed with the
CFI of the city of Manila or
in the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.
2. If the offended party is not holding office in the city of Manila the action shall be filed with the :
CFI of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or
Where the libelous article is printed and first published
PRIVATE LIBEL
For example: KABIT KA SA AKONG BANA is there an imputation of a criminal act? Yes there is an imputation that
you are a concubine of her husband. And concubinage is a private crime. In that instant, just like a private crime the
case can only be filed upon the instance of the private offended party. So ang mufile kadto rang g.hinganlan ug
kabit ka sa akong bana.
Art. 361 proof of the truth IMPORTANT
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.

When proof of truth is admissible 1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private
individual or a public officer.
2. When the offended party is a Government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a
crime, provided, it is related to the discharge of his official duties.
Example:
A stated in the presence of some people that B, a government official is DRUNKARD. B filed a
complaint against A for defamation, A can prove the truth of the charge because 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 a government employee which is not related to
the discharge of his official duties, the offender cannot prove the truth thereof.
Annulment case of a Mayor. That concerns his private life.
Three requisites of defense in defamation:
It will be noted that in the 1st par. Of art. 361, 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. Therefore the following requisites
must concur to have a good defense:
1. Proof of truth
It is not always admissible. It is only admissible in two circumstances as above-mentioned.
2. And It was published with good motives
3. And for justifiable ends

Retraction [withdraw] may mitigate the damages It does not relieve you from any criminal liability but would just mitigate your liability.

UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 11

With good intention and justifiable motive

A, a nurse, was treating a patient suffering from gonorrhea, a venereal disease. She believed that the patient had
been contaminated by her husband. When the husband came to the house, A said this is the result of your
foolishness, you contaminated your wife with venereal disease. This remark was made upstairs within the hearing
of several persons therein.
The husband filed oral defamation against the nurse.
HELD: the warning is in the nature of a privileged communication. An imputation that a person has a contagious
disease might, under ordinary circumstances, be defamatory, but loses such character when made with good
intention and justifiable motive.
The publication of the article was an honest mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to mitigate
damages where the article is libelous per se.
Art. 362 Libelous remarks Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made
with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal
liability.
Libelous remarks or comments on matters privileged, if made with malice in fact, do not exempt the author and
editor. Thus, if remarks or comments are made upon a matter privileged, and malice in a fact is proved, the author
and the editor are liable.
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
1. Incriminating innocent person [art. 363]
2. Intriguing against honor [art. 364]
Art. 363 incriminating innocent person Elements:
1. That the offender performs an act
2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime
3. That such act does not constitute perjury
Penalty: arresto mayor
This article is limited to acts of planting evidence and the like, which do not in themselves constitute false
prosecution but tend directly to cause false prosecution.
Example:
1. A, taking advantage of the fact that B was in the toilet while his [Bs] coat was hanging on the back of a
chair, placed the cellphone of Y. Then A called a policeman and told the latter that B had the cellphone of Y
in his pocket.
-

INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON

2. W files a complaint for rape against X before the prosecutors office. however, the complaint was false.
What crime could be charged against W? You can file a case for case of PERJURY not INCRIMINATING
INNOCENT PERSON.
3. For example, W just said to her friend that X raped her [W], which in fact it was not true. What is the crime
committed? Oral defamation.
4. If what was planted is PROHIBITED DRUG under RA no. 9165, it is a serious offense
Sec. 29, RA no. 9165 Any person who is found guilty of planting any dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.
Incriminating innocent person vs perjury
PERJURY
The gravamen of the offense is the imputation of a
crime, falsely made, before an officer authorized to
administer an oath;

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

UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 12

If the giving of false statement under oath or the

making of a false affidavit, imputing to a person the
commission of a crime

Incriminating machinations vs defamation

Incriminating machinations
The offender does not avail himself of written or
spoken words in besmirching the victims
reputation.

Is limited to the act of planting evidence and the

like, in order to incriminate an innocent person

Defamation
The offender avail himself of written or spoken
words in besmirching the victims reputation.
The imputation made by the offender must be
public and malicious, and besides, must be
calculated to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the aggrieved party; this is not so in the
case of incriminatory machinations.

Art. 364 Intriguing against honor The penalty of arresto mayor or fine not exceeding 200 shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal
purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.
Intriguing against honor is any scheme or plot designed to blemish the reputation of a person by means which
consist of some trickery. It is akin to slander by deed, in that the offender does not avail directly of written or
spoken words, pictures or caricatures to ridicule his victim but of some ingenious, crafty and secret plot, producing
the same effect.
Discussion:
Kani, mao ni siya ang caso sa mga CHISMOSA ug CHISMOSO. socially aware people or person.

Example:
DEFAMATION vs INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
Intriguing against honor
INGON SILA NO NAPAMADUSAN RA BA NA SIYA

MATUD NILA KABIT KONO NA NI CONGRESSMAN,

AMBOT TINUOD BA KA HA NA
a. If the source of the defamatory statement is
identifiable and you relayed it you are
liable under art. 364 intriguing against
honor

Defamation
If the source of the defamatory statement is
identifiable and you adopted it as your own you
could be held liable for ORAL DEFAMATION
[SLANDER].
Example: KABALO KA INGON SI SHARON,
BUNTIS MANA SIYA, KANA SI SHAINA, INGON SI
SHARON ORAL DEFAMATION.

INCRIMINATING AN INNOCENT PERSON VS INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

INCRIMINATING AN INNOCENT PERSON
INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
The offender performs an act by which he directly The offender resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of
incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the blemishing the honor or reputation of another person.
commission of a crime.

UJS-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 13