Libel Laws of the Philippines | @bogadomo.

com

1 of 5

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libe...

Philippine Law. Simple.

Home
Philippine Laws
Recent Laws
Tax, Business & Investment Laws
Criminal Laws
Persons and Family Laws
Health and Insurance Laws
Rules of Court
Philippine Jurisprudence
Legal Doctrines
Legal Doctrines Archive
Notable Cases Decided by the Supreme Court
Legal Topics
Civil and Criminal Procedure
Corporate and Commercial Law
Criminal Law
Election Law
Family Law
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property Law
Labor Law
Legal Forms
Affidavit
General Power of Attorney
Release Waiver and Quitclaim
Special Power of Attorney
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
Law Professor
Law Professor Archives
Bar Matters
Bar Exams Questions
Bar Exams Results

Libel Laws of the Philippines

More
Share
Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as 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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable
act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d)
existence of malice. [Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]
In libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what the words used by him
mean. Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory character of words used in the
following manner, viz:

9/1/2014 4:06 PM

Libel Laws of the Philippines | @bogadomo.com

2 of 5

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libe...

Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false
charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is
sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or
persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their
honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule. . . . [Lacsa v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988) citing U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)]
An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession
of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances which tends
to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
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 in, not the
good opinion which he has of himself. [Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 (1995)]
On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third person or a
stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement. In the case of Corpus vs.
Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807) the Supreme Court ruled that in order to maintain a libel suit, it is
essential that the victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962), although it is
not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116). In an earlier case, the high court also declared that
defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast,
affords no ground of action unless it be shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the
personality of the individual defamed. (Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42 Phil. 760).
This principle has been recognized to be of vital importance, especially where a group or class of persons,
as in the case at bar, claim to have been defamed, for it is evident that the larger the collectivity, the more
difficult it is for the individual member to prove that the defamatory remarks apply to him. (Cf. 70 ALR
2d. 1384).
PRESUMPTION OF MALICE:
The law also presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation. Thus, Article 354 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that:
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.
Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged communication, the character of which is a
matter of defense that may be lost by positive proof of express malice on the part of the accused. Once it is
established that the article is of a privileged character, the onus of proving actual malice rests on the
plaintiff who must then convince the court that the offender was prompted by malice or ill will. When this
is accomplished the defense of privilege becomes unavailing. [Santos v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45031,
21 October 1991, 203 SCRA 110, 114]
Prescinding from this provision, when the imputation is defamatory, as in this case, the prosecution need
not prove malice on the part of the defendant (malice in fact), for the law already presumes that the
defendants imputation is malicious (malice in law). The burden is on the side of the defendant to show

9/1/2014 4:06 PM

Libel Laws of the Philippines | @bogadomo.com

3 of 5

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libe...

good intention and justifiable motive in order to overcome the legal inference of malice.
In order to constitute malice, ill will must be personal. So if the ill will is engendered by ones sense of
justice or other legitimate or plausible motive, such feeling negatives actual malice. [Aquino, Ramon C.,
The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, Bk. II, 1997 Ed., citing People v. de los Reyes, Jr., 47 OG 3569]
It is established doctrine that the malice that attends the dissemination of the article alleged to be libelous
must attend the distribution itself. It cannot be merely a resentment against a person, manifested
unconnectedly several months earlier or one displayed at a much later date.
HOW COMMITTED:
Under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel may be committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means.
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE:
Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing
or bysimilar 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.
DEFENSES:
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.
It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory and, under
the general rule laid down in Article 354, 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. There is malice when the
author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but
merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a
defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for
justifiable ends.

Legal News on Facebook

facebook.com

Follow & Share Legal News with Friends. Create a Pro le Today!

Links
Follow Us on Twitter
List of Philippine Lawyers
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Tanjutco Law Office
Town and Country Homes

9/1/2014 4:06 PM

Libel Laws of the Philippines | @bogadomo.com

4 of 5

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libe...

Categories

Recent Posts
Supreme Court decides on the Cybercrime Prevention Act
SC lifts five-strike rule for bar examinees
Results of 2012 Bar Examinations
Republic Act No. 10172 Correction of Clerical and Typographical Errors in Month and Date
of Birth and Sex of a Person Appearing in Civil Register
Sereno is 24th Chief Justice

Abogadomo Asks?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision on the Cyber Crime Law?
Yes
No
Vote

View Results

9/1/2014 4:06 PM

Libel Laws of the Philippines | @bogadomo.com

5 of 5

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libe...

Ayaw pumila
sa mall?
ayosdito.ph

Mag-AyosDito ka na,
Where real people &
real deals are.

Copyright 1999-2011. abogadomo.com, All rights reserved.

Disclaimer

9/1/2014 4:06 PM