M. Title XIII – Crimes Against Honor

Section 1. – Definition, Forms, and Punishment of this Crime

Art. 353. Definition of Libel/Defamation

Libel - Public and malicious imputation of a crime, or 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. It must be committed through any of the acts enumerated in Art. 355.

---

Defamation may be libel or slander. Defamation is the proper term for libel as used in Art. 353.

Elements:

• 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 (defamatory imputation);
• That the imputation must be made publicly;
• That it must be malicious;
• That it must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; and
• That it must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed

Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person/s (not to the offended party or not just to him/her).

When does the presumption of Malice in law disappear?

Upon proof established of good intention and justifiable motive.

Notes:

• There is no distinction between calumny, insult and libel. All kinds of attack against honor and reputation are punished by the RPC provisions on defamation.
• Malice is presumed to exist in injurious publications.
• Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons are not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for each victim to be identifiable.
• The meaning of the writer is immaterial in determining defamation.
• In libel, the false accusation need not be made under oath. It is perjury which requires that the false accusation is made under oath.
• Seditious libel is punished under Article 142.
• Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous.
• There are as many counts of libel as there are persons defamed.

Criteria to determine whether statements are defamatory:

• In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are construed in their entirety and taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. (Novicio v. Aggabao, G.R. No. 141332)
• Whether the words used are calculated to induce the readers to suppose and understand that the person against whom they are uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold the person up to public ridicule. (U.S. v. O’Connell, 37 Phil.767) and
• Words are construed not only as to the expression used but also with respect to the whole scope and apparent object of the writer. (People v. Encarnacion, C.A., 48 O.G. 1817)

Kinds of Privileged Communication:

• Absolutely Privileged – not actionable even if the actor has acted in bad faith; and
• Qualifiedly Privileged – those which, although containing defamatory imputations, are not actionable unless made with malice or bad faith

General rule: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.

However, the presumption of malice is rebutted if it is shown by the accused that:

• The defamatory imputation is true, in case the law allows proof of the truth of the imputation;
• It is published with good intention; and
• There is justifiable motive for making it.

OTHER ISSUES

The penalty of one degree higher than that provided for by the RPC and special laws shall be imposed on all crimes under RPC and special laws if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act. (Sec. 6)

Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of the same shall be inadmissible for any proceeding before any court or tribunal. (Sec. 18).

The issue of whether “emailing is public” as defined under the Cybercrime Prevention Act is a matter of defense that must be raised during trial.

X was charged with libel after sending libelous emails to the officers of Corp A and Y. In said emails, she aired grievances about the performance of Y as chairman of Corp A. She argued that publication, one of the elements of libel was not present and that emailing does not constitute publication under Article 355 of the RPC. Since the information did not allege that the emails were accessed by other persons, there could be no publication. Lastly, X alleged that she sent the emails as private communication of Corp A with good faith and in the performance of a legal duty. Are X’s emails covered under Article 355 of the RPC?

Whether emailing is sufficiently “public” as required by Articles 353 and 355 of the RPC and the AntiCybercrime Law, is a matter of defense that should be properly raised during trial. While grievances, channeled through proper public authorities, has a degree of protected freedom of speech. The scope and extent of that protection cannot be grounded in abstractions. The facts of the case need to be proven by evidence. (Dio v. People, G.R. No. 208146, 2016)

Malice in fact may be proved or shown by:

• Extrinsic evidence that the defendant bore a grudge against the offended party; or
• That there was rivalry or ill-feeling between them which existed at the date of the publication of the defamatory imputation; or
• That the defendant had an intention to injure the reputation of the offended party as shown by the words used and the circumstances attending the publication of the defamatory imputation

Notes:

• Prosecution must prove malice in fact to convict the accused in case of qualifiedly-privileged communication.
• Absolutely privileged communications are not actionable even if done in bad faith. This covers statements made by members of Congress in discharge of functions, and judicial proceedings when pertinent and relevant to subject of inquiry.
• Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith. Defense of privileged communication in paragraph 1 of Art. 354 will be rejected if it is shown that the accused acted with malice and there is no reasonable ground for believing the charge to be true.
• Privileged communication may be found in a public document.
• That the statement is a privileged communication is a matter of defense.
• Statements made in self defense or in mutual controversy are often privileged. The person libeled is justified to hit back with another libel. However, retaliation and vindictiveness cannot be the basis of self-defense in defamation. Self-defense must be on matters related to the specific defamatory imputations cast upon the person invoking the defense.
• Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if defendant proves the truth of imputation. However, any attack upon private character on matters not related to the discharge of official duties may be libelous.
• Similarly, the mental, moral and physical fitness of a candidate for public office may be subject to criticism. Criticism deals only with such things as shall invite public attention or call for public comment. It does not follow a public man into his private life and domestic concerns. (REYES, BOOK TWO, p.1051)

Notes:

• The law provides “or any similar means”, which easily qualifies television as such a species or category. Defamation made in a television program is libel. Also included are pictures.
• Defamation through an amplifier is not libel, but oral defamation (slander).
• The penalty prescribed is in addition to civil liability.
• Libel may be absorbed in the crime of threats if the intent to threaten is the principal aim and object.

Punishable acts:

• By threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other members of his family; or
• By offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation, or money consideration.

Blackmail is any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure. It is possible to charge such acts in the crimes of light threats (Art. 283) and in threatening to publish libel (Art. 356).

Art. 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to in the Course of Official Proceedings

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 such facts have been mentioned

---

Elements:

• That the offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine;
• That he publishes facts connected with the private life of another; and
• That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person.

Notes:

• Words uttered in the heat of anger constitute light oral defamation.
• Uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party, constitutes only a light felony. (Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351)
• If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and the accused at the same time pointed his finger at the complainant, oral defamation is committed.
• The slander need not be heard by the offended party.

Art. 359. Slander by Deed

Any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person

---

Elements:

• That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor;
• That such act is performed in the presence of other person/s; and
• That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party/ies

Notes:

• Slander by Deed may either be simple or grave, depending upon the nature of the deed.
• Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by deed, it appearing from the factual milieu of the case that the act complained of was employed "to express anger or displeasure" at complainant. While it may have cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon complainant, said act is not of a serious nature.
• Cursing, however, has been held not constitutive of slander by deed, though depending on the environmental circumstances when uttered.

Venue of criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamation (provides for exclusive jurisdiction):

• 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, or
• Where one of the offended parties is a public officer:
• if his office is in the City of Manila, with the RTC of Manila; otherwise, with the RTC of the city/province where he held office at the time of offense;
• or the city/province where the article was first published;
• Where one of the offended parties is a private individual, with the RTC of province/city where he actually resides at the time of the crime or where the article was printed or first published.

Guidelines in the observance of a rule of preference in the imposition of penalties in Libel Cases (Administrative Circular No. 08-2008)

• This Administrative Circular does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for the crime of libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, of otherwise be contrary to the imperative of justice.
• Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provision on subsidiary imprisonment.

Notes:

• A complaint for defamation imputing a private crime (i.e. adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and acts of lasciviousness) must be filed by the offended party.
• If the libel imputes a vice or defect and not a crime, it is always prosecuted upon information signed and filed by the fiscal.
• The person who publishes a libelous letter written by the offended party is liable (publishing, not composing, is the prime requisite of the crime).
• The liability of the editor is the same as that of the author.
• Limitations of venue: aimed at minimizing interference with public functions when the case involves a public officer, and avoiding unnecessary harassment of the accused by limiting out-of-town libel suits.
• Exemplary damages may be awarded if actions are based on quasi-delict.
• No remedies - civil or criminal - for damages for slander or libel in case of absolutely privileged communication.

Art. 361. Proof of the Truth

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 defendants 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 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.

---

Elements of Act No. 2

• Offender committed any of the acts of falsification;
• It is a private document that is falsified;
• There is damage caused to a third party or at least intent to cause such damage;
• Need not be material damage;
• Damage to one’s honor is included; and
• Effect need not be to profit offender for as long as it damaged another.

Proof of Truth is Admissible only when (and notwithstanding the language used in the first par. of Art. 361):

• The act or omission imputed constitutes a crime, regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a public officer, or
• 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.

Notes:

• The proof of the truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay, rumors, or suspicion but upon positive, direct evidence upon which a definite finding may be made by the court.
• 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.
• There is no libel when there is no malice.
• Retraction may mitigate the damages. If the article is libelous per se, publication due to honest mistake is only mitigating.

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.

---

Chapter 2: Incriminatory Machinations

Art. 363. Incriminating Innocent Person

Any person who, by an act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime.

---

Elements:

• That the offender performs an act;
• That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime; and
• That such act does not constitute perjury.

Incriminating an Innocent Person and Perjury, Distinguished

Art. 364. Intriguing against Honor

Making any intrigue which has, for its principal purpose, blemishing the honor or reputation of a person

---

How committed:

This felony is committed by any person who shall make any intrigue with the principal purpose of blemishing the honor or reputation of another person. It is committed by saying to others an unattributable thing, which, if it said to the person himself, amounts to slander.

Notes:

• Must be committed by means of some trickery and secret plot, and not through gossiping, which falls under defamation.
• Where the source or author of derogatory information cannot be determined and defendant passes it to others, defendant’s act is one of intriguing against honor. If it came from a definite source, slander is committed.

Intriguing against honor and Incriminating an Innocent Person, Distinguished

Intriguing against honor and Slander, Distinguished

Guidelines for the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases (A.C. No. 08-2008)

Meaning of “with insult” or “in disregard”

There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party. (People vs. Mangsant y Esmiña, G.R. No. L-45704)