ART 356.

THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A

COMPENSATION
 Acts punished:
1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse,
child, or other members of his family
2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation
 This is also known as blackmail
 Blackmail – any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure
 It must be for a compensation or money consideration to be penalized
 Blackmail is possible in the following crimes:
1. Light threats
2. Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of a libel for
compensation
ART 357. PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFFERED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS
 Penalty – arresto mayor
 Fine – 200 to 2,000 pesos
 Elements:
1. A reporter, editor, or
2. manager of a newspaper (daily or magazine)
3. He shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and;
4. Offensive to the honor, virtue, and reputation of said
person
 Prohibition applies even though if the facts are involved in official proceedings
 This article is referred to as the Gag Law because while a report of an official proceeding is
allowed, it gags those who would publish therein facts which this article prohibits, and
punishes any violation thereof.
 The Gag Law prohibits the publication of cases relating to adultery, divorce, legitimacy of
children, etc.
 If one of the elements (2 and 3) are not present, there is no violation of Art. 357
Ex: Suit for alimony – allowances that one spouse pays the other for maintenance
while they are separated. Alimony refers to the private life of a person (Element
2), but it is not offensive to the honor of such person (Element 3)
Ex: Theft/homicide – offensive to the honor but not connected with his private
life
Ex: Adultery based on infidelity both qualify but do not interest newspaper
readers
 Under R.A. No. 1477, the source of information may not be revealed (print). Unless the
court/House/Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State
Ex: The alleged leakage of bar exam - affects the interest of the State but not the
security of the State
ART 358. SLANDER (ORAL DEFAMATION)

 Kinds:
1. Simple slander
2. Grave slander – when it is of a serious and insulting nature
Ex: Woman of violent temper VS. respectable married lady with young
daughters
 Factors that determine the gravity of the oral defamation:
1. Expressions used
2. Personal relations of the accused and the offended party
3. Circumstances surrounding the case
4. Social standing and position of the offended party
Ex: VP candidate, respectable teacher
 Examples of simple slander
1. Intended to correct an improper conduct
2. Calling a person a gangster
3. Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the
part of the offended party
4. Defamation uttered in political meeting
 Puta does not impute that the complainant is a prostitute
 It is a common expression that is often employed not really to slander but to express
anger. It is seldom taken on its literal sense, that is, a reflection on the virtue of a mother

 The slander doesn’t need to be heard by the offended party.

Because a man’s reputation is measured on what others think of him, not the
opinion he has for himself
 Gossiping is considered as oral defamation if a defamatory fact is imputed or intriguing
against honor if there is no imputation.
 Self-defense in slander may only be invoked if his reply is made in good faith, without
malice, is not necessarily defamatory to his assailant and is necessary for his explanation
or defense.

ART 359. SLANDER BY DEED

 Slander by deed – crime committed by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit
or contempt upon another person
- Refers to performance of an act, not use of words like libel or slander
- Ex: Slapping another person – to cause shame and humiliation; street
fight – to insult and contempt
 Elements:
1. Any act not included in any other crime against honor
2. Performed in the presence of other persons
3. Casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon the offended party
  Kinds:
1. Simple slander by deed
Ex: pointing a dirty finger – used as common expression, not taken from its
literal meaning; spitting on the face – acted in the heat of passion
2. Grave slander by deed – which is of a serious nature depending on social standing
and circumstances
 Slander by deed and acts of lasciviousness
Ex: Kissing a girl in public and touching her breasts by a rejected suitor – The
intention is to cast dishonor on the girl without lewd designs. Thus, slander by
deed.
 Slander by deed and maltreatment – nature and effects of the maltreatment will
determine the crime committed
Ex: Holding a teacher by the hair and shaking him violently in the presence of
students and other teachers
 Unjust vexation, slander by deed, and act of lasciviousness – common denominator is
irritation or annoyance

ART 360. PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIBEL

 Elements:
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 anyway participate in or have connection with its
publication
 Lack of participation in the preparation of libelous articles doesn’t shield the persons
responsible for libel from liability – not a matter of whether they conspired or not

An
independent civil action
may befiled simultaneously or separately inthe same RTC where the criminalaction was filed and
vice versa.
ARTICLE 361PROOF OF TRUTHWhen proof of the truth isadmissible in a charge for Libel:
1.

When the act or omission imputedconstitutes a crime regardless ofwhether the offended party
is aprivate individual or a publicofficer.2.

When the offended party is aGovernment employee, even if theimputation does not constitute
acrime, provided it is related to thedischarge of his official duties.The proof of truth of the
accusationcannot be based upon mere hearsay,rumors or suspicion. It must bepositive, direct
evidence upon which adefinite finding maybe made by thecourt.
Defense in Defamation:
1.

It appears that the matterscharged as libelous is true;2.

It was published with goodmotives; AND3.

For a justifiable end.

IncriminatingInnocentPersonsDefamation
Offender does notavail himself ofwritten or spokenword inbesmirching the
victim’s
reputation.Imputation ispublic andmaliciouscalculated tocause dishonor,discredit, orcontempt
uponthe offendedparty.
ARTICLE 362LIBELOUS REMARKS
Libelous remarks or commentsconnected with the matter privilegedunder the provisions of
Art. 354
, ifmade with malice, shall not exemptthe author thereof nor the editor ormanaging editor of
a newspaper fromcriminal liability.
ARTICLE 363INCRIMINATING INNOCENTPERSONSElements
:1.

That the offender performs an act;

2.

That by such act he directlyincriminates or imputes to aninnocent person the commissionof a

crime;3.

That such act does not constituteperjury.

IncriminatingInnocent PersonsPerjury byMaking False Accusation
Limited to the actof plantingevidence and thelike in order toincriminate aninnocent
person.Giving of falsestatement underoath or making afalse affidavit,imputing to theperson
thecommission of acrime.It is committed byperforming an actby which theoffender
directlyincriminates orimputes to aninnocent personthe commission ofa crime.It is
committedwhen theimputation wasfalsely madebefore an officer.
ARTICLE 364INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
Committed by any person who shallmake any intrigue, which has for itsprincipal purpose to
blemish thehonor or reputation of another.This refers to such intrigues against a
person’s honor or reputation, which
are not otherwise punished underother articles of the code. It differsfrom defamation in that it
consists oftricky or secret plots and may becommitted without using written orspoken words,
which are defamatory.
Intriguing Against HonorDefamation
Source ofderogatorystatementscannot bedetermined.Source is known.Consists of sometricky
and secretplot.Committed in apublic andmalicious manner.Passes
suchutteranceswithoutsubscribing to thetruth of theremarks.The remarksmade are claimedto be
true.