Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Title Thirteen
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Chapter One
LIBEL
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is 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 a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Elements of defamation
1. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance.
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
3. Any act, omission, condition, status or, or circumstance relating to the offended party.
• The alleged libelous article must be construed as a whole. The article must be construed in its entirety
including the headline. Whether it is libelous depends on upon the scope, spirit and motive of the
publication taken in its entirety.
• Publication, even if intended for humor, may be libelous when the language used passed from the bounds
of playful jest and intensive criticism into the region of scurrilous calumniation and intemperate
personalities.
• Branding somebody as having murdered his brother-in-law, enriching himself at the expense of others
who trusted him, calling one a bigamist and becoming rich overnight through questionable transactions
and influence peddling, winning in an election through mass fraud and rampant vote-buying because of
the influence of the brother-in-law are obviously libelous and slanderous for they are malicious
imputations of criminal acts tending to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt of the complainant.
Imputation of a crime may be implied from the acts and statements of the accused
• While it is true that "A" did not call "B" a thief, the implication of her acts and statements are clearly to
that effect. She confronted the complainant regarding the loss of her money, telling "B" that she was the
only one who approached her table and that as soon as the complainant left, the money had disappeared.
All these statements were made in a loud voice in the presence of many persons subjecting offended party
to embarrassment and ridicule before other bank employees. These acts likewise unravel the existence of
malice in fact.
An expression of opinion by one affected by the act of another and based on actual fact is not libelous
• But in order to escape criminal responsibility for libel or slander, it is not enough for the party who writes
a defamatory communication to another to say that he expresses therein no more than his opinion or
belief. The communication must be made in the performance of a "legal, moral or social duty."
• The accused was declared guilty of the crime of libel for writing and publishing an article containing the
words, "coward, vile, soul, dirtsucker, savage, hog who always looks toward the ground" which refer to
the offended party.
• To say that a person is a "mangkukulam" is to impute to her a vice, condition, or status that is
dishonorable and contemptible since it accuses her of having employed the black art.
Meaning of publication
• Communication of the defamatory matter to some third person/s.
Publication of the defamatory imputation
• Delivering the articles to the typesetter is sufficient publication. (US v. Crame)
• Sending to the wife, a letter defamatory of her husband, is sufficient publication. (US v. Ubana)
NOTE: The person defamed is the husband and the wife is the third person to whom the publication is made.
• Sending a letter in a sealed envelope through a messenger is NOT publication. (Lopez v. Delgado)
• Writing a letter to another person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication, for
the person to whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed
therein.
There is publication of defamatory letter not shown to be sealed when sent to the addressee
• The communication of the libelous matter to the person defamed alone does not amount to publication,
for that cannot injure his reputation.
• NOTE: A man's reputation is the estimate in which others hold him; not the good opinion which he has of
himself.
• Where the communication is privileged, malice is not presumed from the defamatory words. The
presumption of malice does not arise in the two cases of privileged communication mentioned in Nos. 1
and 2 of Article 354. The prosecution must prove malice, whenever the defamatory imputation appears in
a privileged communication.
There is no libel in interchange of captions of pictures made by mistake, because malice is absent
• The group picture of 6 well-dressed men including the plaintiff appeared in a 3-column photo published
in The Manila Times carrying a caption on the arrest by Customs authorities of 6 persons for alleged
"illegal salvaging" of sunken bombs and other missiles. The pictures and captions were interchanged with
the picture of the arrested persons. The error was discovered only after copies of the first edition had
already been printed and shipped to defendant's agents. Correction was however immediately made in the
subsequent copies of the issue of the same date.
• Held: The interchange was all an honest mistake and there was neither intent nor malice on the part of the
defendants to ridicule or put the plaintiff in public contempt. (Solidum v. Roces)
• BUT in Lopez v. CA where the photograph of the person who was given the appellation of "Hoax of the
Year" and the photograph of plaintiff in the Civil Case for damages were inadvertently switched, the
publisher and editor of This Week Magazine was held liable for damages.
• Dissenting: There is need to prove that the publication was made with actual malice - that is, with
knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
• When the obnoxious writing does not mention the libeled party by name, the prosecution is permitted to
prove by evidence that the vague imputation refers to the complainant.
• It is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that he be named.
• Where the article is impersonal on its face and interpretation of its language does not single out
individuals, the 4 th essential requirement of the offense of libel does not exist.
Illustration
• An article in the Cablenews-American described a Chinese Society, whose aim was to induce a boycott
by the Chinese of Japanese goods, as having offered P10,000 in a secret meeting for the life of the
Chinese consul-general. The two plaintiffs were the president and treasurer of a Chinese society. They
claimed that they were libeled by the writer of the article.
• Held: Defamatory imputations directed at a class or group of persons in general language are not
actionable by individuals composing the class or group unless the statements are sweeping. And it is very
probable that even then, no action would lie where the body is composed of so large a number of persons
that there is room for persons connected with the body to pursue an upright and law-abiding course.
But the publication need not refer by name to the offended party. It is sufficient if it is shown that the offended
party is the person meant or alluded to therein.
Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing for
the victim to be identifiable
Libel published in different parts may be taken together to establish the identification of the offended party
• The first publication mentions no name. The second publication consists of a cartoon in which the person
referred to in the first publication are caricatured by name and to each one of them is attached one of the
defamatory words or phrases.
• Held: The two publication were considered together to establish the identity of the offended party.
Innuendo
• It is a clause in the indictment or other pleading containing an averment which is explanatory of some
preceding word or statement.
• It is the office of an innuendo to define the defamatory meaning which plaintiff set on the words, to show
how they came to have that meaning, and also to show how they relate to the plaintiff.
Purpose must be to injure the reputation of the offended party, to discredit or dishonor the persons allegedly
libeled.
• Thus, 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.
The imputation must tend to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt by the offended party
1. dishonor
2. discredit
Meaning
1. Dishonor - disgrace, shame or ignominy
If the utterance is made but once against a family of lawyers, designated by their common surname, not separately
mentioned, there is only one offense
• Cory was accused of the crime of grave oral defamation for having allegedly uttered the words to this
effect: "You, Merrera lawyers, are stealers *** shameless *** impolite."
• Held: The utterance of the defamatory statement complained of should be regarded as only one offense
and made the subject of only one information, the utterance having been made but once and referring
apparently to a family of lawyers designated by their common surnames but not separately mentioned.
• Where the alleged slanderous utterances were committed on the same date and at the same place but
against two different person, the situation has given rise to two separate and individual causes for
prosecution, with respect to each of the persons defamed.
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:
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.
• Even if the imputation is true, the presumption of malice still exists, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown.
Illustration
• If "A" tells "B" that "C" is a thief and the fact is that "C" is really a thief because he was previously
convicted of theft, can it be presumed that the imputation made by "A" is malicious?
• Yes, because Article 354 says that "every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it be
true"
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.
• They are the so-called privileged communication
• The prosecution must prove malice in fact to convict the accused on a charge of libel
involving privileged communication.
Private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty
• This exception is predicated upon the fact that it is the duty and right of a citizen to make a complaint of
any misconduct on the part of the public officials to those charged with the supervision over them, even
though the charges contained therein are not substantiated upon investigation, unless it appears that the
charges were made maliciously and without any reasonable ground for believing them to be true.
The communication need not be in private document as it may also be in a public document, like an affidavit.
• NOTE: The privileged communication covers also complaints against individuals who are not public
officers, like priests.
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).
• A communication sent by an official to his immediate superior in the performance of a legal duty, as an
explanation of a matter contained in an indorsement sent to him by his superior officer, although
employed in a language somewhat harsh and uncalled for, is excusable in the interest of public policy.
Such constitutes privileged communication.
• The existence of social duty depends upon the relationship between the sender and the recipient of the
communication. If the communication was made by a person having no social duty to perform, it is not
privileged.
The communication must be addressed to an officer or superior having some interest or duty in the matter
• Defendant instead of communicating the matter to Councilo Clapano who was not his superior nor the
party to whom the information should be given, could have made the revelation himself either in open
session or by taking the necessary steps to have the matter investigated. As a co-member of the City
Council, defendant owes no legal or moral duty to Clapano.
Applying to the wrong person due to honest mistake does not take the case out of the privilege
• To permit private persons having, or in good faith, believing themselves to have knowledge of such
wrongdoing, to perform the legal, moral or social duty, without restraining them by the fear that an error
may subject them to punishment for defamation.
The privileged character simply does away with the presumption of malice
• The fact that a communication is privilege does not mean that it is not actionable; the privileged character
simply does away with the presumption of malice, which the plaintiff has to prove in such a case.
The rule is that a communication loses its privileged character and is actionable on proof of actual malice
That the statement is a privileged communication is a matter of defense and must be established by the accused.
• Exception: When in the information itself it appears that the communication alleged to be libelous is
contained in an appropriate pleading in a court proceeding, the privilege becomes at once apparent and
defendant need not wait until the trial and produce evidence before he can raise the question of privilege.
Defense of privileged communication under paragraph No. 1 of Article 354 will be rejected if it is shown by the
prosecution that
1. the defendant acted with malice in fact, OR
But probable cause for belief in the truth of the matter charged is sufficient
• Even when the statements are found to false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and
the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the individual. But
the statement must be under an honest sense of duty: a self-seeking motive is destructive.
• Requirements:
a. That it is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are
not 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;
• If all these conditions are present the person who makes the report of the official proceedings is not guilty
of libel, even if the report contains defamatory and injurious matters affecting another person.
• The report of the complaint is not fair and true when, contrary to the complaint, the report stated that the
complaint charged the plaintiff with removing the money from the vaults or with making wrong entry of
the amounts in the books of the company.
• Held: Even if the report of the jubilation of the complainant was true, the accused should have stopped at
reciting the facts only. He should not have made any comments or remarks.
Judicial proceedings
1. True report of judicial proceedings is privileged. Malice must be shown by the prosecution, as it is the
very gist of the offense involving the publication of a true report of a judicial proceeding.
Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document
Constitutes as a waiver of the authors from any liability whatsoever
10
Reyes 2001 Book II Outline - Title Thirteen Kiddy and Mondy
2. Allegations and averments in pleadings are absolutely privileged only insofar as they are relevant or
pertinent to the issue.
• Example: Where the defendant who instituted an action for the recovery of professional fees, alleged
in his complaint that the offended party frequently evaded his obligations and that his creditors were
disgusted because they could not collect what was due them, it was held that the allegations were
impertinent and unnecessary.
3. An action for libel on a defamatory matter uttered in the course of a judicial proceeding might be
instituted even if the defamatory matter had not yet been stricken out of the record. An action for libel
accrues from the date of publication.
• Fair and true report of the complaint filed in court without remarks or comments even before an
answer is filed or a decision promulgated should be covered by the privilege.
• Reason: Pleadings have become part of public record open to the public to scrutinize; Pleadings are
presumed to contain allegations and assertions lawful and legal in nature, appropriate to the
disposition of issue ventilated before the courts for the proper administration of justice and, therefore,
of general public concern; and Pleadings are presumed to contain allegations in good faith.
4. Parties, counsels, and witnesses are exempted from liability in libel or slander for words otherwise
defamatory published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided the statement are pertinent or
relevant to the case.
• Reason: Protection given to individuals in the interest of an efficient administration of justice may not
be abused as a cloak from beneath which private malice may be gratified.
Legislative proceedings
• Includes proceedings of the committees of the Congress of the Philippines.
• A reporter can publish the records of those proceedings, provided he does not give any comment or
remark thereon, and provided further that they are not of confidential nature.
Publishing that a restaurant had attempted to sell a putrid fowl to its patrons is not an actionable wrong, such was
a matter which the public had the undeniable right to know.
Acts penalized
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next
preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective
date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions
thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any
copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Section 3
hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Penalty
SECTION 2. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any
of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following
section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction
thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public
official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to
deportation proceedings.
SECTION 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace
officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful
in the two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as
defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and
other offenses against national security: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted
upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses
he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes
enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided,
however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall
be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been
or are being 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 such crimes;
and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity of the person or persons whose communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case
of telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its
location; (2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear, intercept, or record the
communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the offense or offenses committed or
sought to be prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization. The authorization shall be effective for the
period specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order,
unless extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public
interest.
The court referred to in this section shall be understood to mean the Court of First Instance within whose
territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be executed.
Inadmissibility of evidence
SECTION 4. 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 the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
The phrase "any other device or arrangement" in R.A. 4200 does not cover an extension line
• The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of
secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording the communication. There must be either a physical
interruption through a wire tap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to
overhear, intercept or record the spoken word.
• An extension phone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph, or the other
devices enumerated in Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping"
the wire or cable of a telephone line.
Framers of R.A. No. 4200 were more concerned with penalizing the act of recording a telephone conversation
than merely listening thereto.
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods 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.
"In addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party"
• A civil action for damages may be filed simultaneously or separately with the criminal action.
Threats and libel committed on the same occasion and contained in the same letter
*** They must not be stubborn about Mr. Luciano Sta. Catalinas fooling the people.***
*** And if there is nobody who will care among the authorities in the government in this respect of my being
belittled and the belittling of others and if Sta, Catalina will not pay what I paid and others paid for the donation,
you can be sure that I will do, life for life; against those people who have been fooling with our barrio and to the
authorities in the government, I hope they will not withhold all what I said in this respect."
• The said letter is more threatening than libelous, and the intent to threaten is the principal aim and object
of the letter. The libelous remarks contained are merely preparatory remarks culminating in the final
threat.
• The libelous remarks express the heat of passion which engulfs the writer of the letter, which heat of
passion in the latter part of the letter culminates into a threat.
• The offense committed is clearly and principally that of threats and that the statements derogatory to a
person named do not constitute an independent crime of libel. It is considered as part of the more
important offense of threats.
Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine 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.
Illustration
• The accused threatened to publish in a weekly periodical, certain letters, amorous in nature, written by a
married woman and addressed by her to a man, not her husband, unless she paid P4,000 to them.
• This is blackmail.
Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or
manager or 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 such 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 honor, virtue and reputation of said person
Prohibition applies even if the facts are made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the
narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.
Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished 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 menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
What is slander?
• Slander is oral defamation.
2 kinds of oral defamation
1. Simple slander
2. Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature
• That the complainant was a respectable young lady, a public school teacher to whom her students were to
look up to for exemplariness of character; the unpleasant remarks were said in the presence of students
and co-teachers of the complainant, the more the court is convinced that the crime committed by the
accused is grave.
The slander need not be heard by the offended party because a man's reputation is the estimate in which others
hold him, not the good opinion in which he has of himself.
Art. 359. Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a
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/s.
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.
Fighting the offended party with intention to insult him and bring his opponent into contempt in the eyes of the
public is slander by deed.
Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or
exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter,
shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public
officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article
is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the
action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance 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 and in case one of
the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous
matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court
where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal
action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts:
And, provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil
and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be
conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or
capital of the province where such action may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted
de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended
party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).
The person who publishes libelous letter written by the offended party is liable
• "A" sent a love letter to "B" containing intimate expressions of sentiment. To a third person the contents
of said letter would be ridiculous. "B" after breaking up with "A" published the latter.
• B is liable for libel. The prime requisite of the crime of libel is not necessarily the composing of the
article but the publishing of it.
Municipal court of a municipality cannot conduct preliminary investigation of criminal action for written
defamations
• Preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written defamations shall be conducted by the provincial
or city fiscal of the province or city or by the municipality (now city) court of the city or capital of the
province where the action may be instituted.
Venue of criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamation
• The criminal and civil actions for damages in case of written defamations shall be filed simultaneously or
separately with the CFI 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.
In case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the CFI of the province or
city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed
and first published.
• The limitation of the choices of venue was intended to minimize or limit the fling of out-of-town libel
suits to protect an alleged offender from "hardships, inconveniences and harassments" and to protect "the
interest of the public service" where one of the offended parties is a public officer.
• The intent of the law is clear: a libeled public official must sue in the court of the locality where he holds
office, in order that the prosecution of the action should interfere as little as possible with the discharge of
his official duties and labors. The only alternative allowed him by law is to prosecute those responsible
for the libel in the place where the offending articles was printed and first published.
Libel imputing a vice or defect, not being an imputation of a crime, is always prosecuted upon information signed
and filed by the fiscal
• The imputation 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 the offended party, does not involve
a crime in the imputation. It may be prosecuted de oficio.
• And since only a crime may be or may not be prosecuted de oficio, the imputation of a vice or defect, any
act or omission, condition, status, or circumstance is not covered by the last paragraph of Article 360.
Damages in defamation
• Actual damages need not be proved, at least where the publication is libelous per se.
• Reason: By its nature, libel causes dishonor, discredit, disrepute and injury to the reputation of the
offended party as its natural and probable consequence.
An action for exemplary damages in libel may be awarded if the action is based on quasi-delict
• For liability in damages to arise from an alleged libelous publication without offending press freedom,
there is need to prove that the publication was made with actual malice - with knowledge of its falsity or
with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
An absolutely privileged communication is one for which, by reason of the occasion on which it is made, no
remedy is provided for the damages in a civil action for slander or libel.
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 Government employees with respect to facts related to
the discharge of their official duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
Example of No. 2
• "A" stated in the presence of some people that "B," a government official was in the habit of drinking
intoxicating liquor during office hours and that he was always in a boisterous condition. In case "B"
should file a complaint against "A" for defamation, the latter can prove the truth of the charge.
• Both public interest and the good of the service demand that a drunkard be barred from the service.
• But when the imputation involved the private life of a government employee which is not related to the
discharge of his official duties, the offender can not prove the truth thereof.
"In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted"
• The 3 rd paragraph of Article 361 must have reference to the 2 cases referred to in the 2 nd paragraph where
proof of the truth may be admitted, namely: 1) if the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime; and 2)
of the imputation not constituting a crime is made against a Government employees with respect to facts
related to the discharge of their duties.
• The question may arise whether or not it is necessary to show that the accused who proved the truth of the
imputation published it with good motives and for justifiable ends in order that he may be acquitted.
• It is believed that since the accused did the public service, proof of his good motives and justifiable ends
is not necessary.
Proof of truth
• The proof of truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay, rumors or suspicion.
• It may rest upon positive, direct evidence upon which a definite finding may be made by the Court.
• But probable cause for belief in the truth of the statement is sufficient.
When evidence of the truth of imputation not admissible
Illustration
• "A" stated before several persons that "B", a private individual, is a drunkard or is suffering from
contagious disease. In case "A" is prosecuted for defamation, he will not be allowed to prove the truth
that "B" was really a drunkard or suffering from some communicable disease.
• Defamatory remarks against government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their
official duties will not constitute libel if defendant proves the truth pf the imputation.
Good motives and justifiable ends constitute a defense insofar as they negative malice. There is no liable if there
is no malice.
That 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.
Liability of newspaper reporter for distorting facts connected with official proceedings
• The reporter of a newspaper publication, in publishing what passes in a court of justice, must publish the
whole case, and not merely state the conclusion which he himself draws from the evidence.
• The author or the editor of a publication who distorts, mutilates or discolors the official proceedings
reported by him, or add comments thereon to cast aspersion on the character of the parties concerned, is
guilty of libel, notwithstanding the fact that the defamatory matter is published in connection with a
privileged matter.
Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document
Constitutes as a waiver of the authors from any liability whatsoever
24
Reyes 2001 Book II Outline - Title Thirteen Kiddy and Mondy
Chapter Two
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person. — Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall
directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by
arresto menor.
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
This article is limited to "planting" evidence and the like which do not in themselves constitute false prosecution
but tend directly to cause false prosecution.
• "A" taking advantage of the fact that "B" was in the toilet while his (B's) coat was hanging on the back of
the chair, placed a small bottled of opium in the pocket of the coat. Then "A" called a policeman and told
the latter that "B" had a bottle of opium in his pocket.
• NOTE: "A" performed an act by putting in "B's" pocket a bottle of opium, This is called "planting
evidence."
Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be
imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a
person.
• Committed by a person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the
honor or reputation of another person.
Intriguing against honor is any scheme or plot by means 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.