Oral Defamation vs Libel vs Cyber Libel

All three rest on the definition of libel in Article 353:

In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court listed the elements: a discreditable act or condition is imputed to another, the charge is published, the person is identifiable, and there is malice. Under Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious unless a good intention and justifiable motive are shown, with exceptions such as a private communication made in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty.

The means. Article 355 covers libel done by writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means. Spoken words fall under Article 358 instead:

Whether oral defamation is serious or slight depends on the circumstances. In Pader v. People (2000), the Supreme Court looked not only at the words but also at the situation and the relationship between the parties. It treated "putang ina mo" there as slight oral defamation. More in Oral defamation: is shouting insults a crime?

The deadlines also differ. Article 90 gives one year for libel and six months for oral defamation.

Cyber libel is not a new kind of defamation. Republic Act No. 10175, Section 4(c)(4), punishes libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code when it is "committed through a computer system". A Facebook post, a tweet or a blog entry that meets the elements of libel can be cyber libel. Section 21 gives the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over violations of the law.

The penalty is higher. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 says crimes in the Revised Penal Code committed through information and communications technologies get a penalty "one (1) degree higher". The Supreme Court upheld this in Disini. The law does not spell out the exact prison range after the increase, so this page does not give one.

Two other points come from the Supreme Court:

• Only the author. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Court held Section 4(c)(4) valid against the original author of the post but void for others who simply receive the post and react to it. It also struck down the aiding-or-abetting provision as applied to online libel.
• One year from discovery. In Causing v. People (2023), the Court held that cyber libel prescribes in one year, like ordinary libel, counted from discovery by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. It abandoned the earlier 15-year rule. Causing was decided by a Division of the Court, the Third Division, not by the full Court.

For the full Q&A, see Cyber libel: can you be sued for a Facebook post? and Libel penalty in the Philippines.

Sometimes. Article 361 says the accused shall be acquitted if the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Both conditions matter. See Is truth a defense in libel?

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Aling Rosa. During a quarrel in the barangay, Aling Rosa shouts at her neighbor "magnanakaw ka!" in front of other people. The words were spoken, so this can be oral defamation. Whether it is serious or slight depends on the words and the situation. The neighbor has six months to file.

Jessa. Jessa posts on Facebook that her former employer, whom she names, "steals the salaries of his staff". If the post is false and malicious, it can be cyber libel, with a penalty one degree higher than ordinary libel. The one-year period runs from when the employer discovered the post.

Paolo. Paolo only reacted "haha" and wrote "grabe" under Jessa's post. Under Disini, he cannot be held liable for cyber libel just for reacting to a post he received. Liability falls on the original author.

Mang Ben. Mang Ben prints flyers saying that a store owner in his street sells stolen goods, and leaves them at every gate. The flyer is printed, not posted online, so the case would be ordinary libel under Articles 353 and 355.

Talk to a lawyer before filing a complaint, and right away if you receive a subpoena for libel or cyber libel. Whether words are defamatory, privileged or true depends on the facts, and deadlines are short. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines for the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and other options.