Is Truth a Defense in Libel?

Article 361 reads:

So the article sets up three situations:

1. You accused someone of a crime. You may prove it is true. To be acquitted, you must also show good motives and justifiable ends.
2. You accused a government employee of something about his or her official duties that is not a crime. You may prove it is true, and if you do, you are acquitted.
3. You accused a private person of something that is not a crime (a vice, a defect, an embarrassing fact). Proof of truth is not admitted at all. The question becomes whether you had a good intention and a justifiable motive, or whether a privilege applies.

Because Article 354 says so:

The law protects reputation, not only against lies. Spreading a true but private fact just to shame someone can still be libel. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Supreme Court put it this way for private persons: the law presumes malice from the defamatory character of the statement, and the accused must show a justifiable reason for it, even if it was true.

Article 354 lists two cases:

• A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty.
• A fair and true report, made in good faith and without comments or remarks, of judicial, legislative or other official proceedings that are not confidential, or of statements made in them, or of acts of public officers in their functions.

In these cases, the speaker does not have to overcome the presumption first.

Disini explained that the Revised Penal Code mainly targets libel against private persons. When the offended party is a public official or a public figure, a stricter standard applies. The prosecution must prove "actual malice": that the accused made the statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. The Court added that "Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice."

Disini also said that when the offended party is a public official or public figure, the defense that there was no actual malice is available even when the statement turns out to be false.

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

Lorna posts that her former employer was convicted of estafa last year, which is true, and she links the court decision because the employer is again collecting money from new investors in her town. She can try to prove the truth, and she can argue good motives (warning the public) and justifiable ends. A court weighs both.

Dante posts a printed notice on a store wall saying his neighbor Roy "has a debt problem and drinks too much". Even if true, these are not crimes, so Article 361 does not let Dante prove their truth. The question is whether he had a good intention and a justifiable motive. (If Dante had only said this out loud, it would be a question of oral defamation instead.)

Wilma writes in a community newsletter that a barangay official took money from the relief fund. The offended party is a public official, so under Disini the prosecution must prove actual malice. Wilma may also try to prove the truth of her statement under Article 361.

Cyber libel under Republic Act No. 10175 is libel, as defined in the Revised Penal Code, committed through a computer system. Disini upheld Articles 353, 354 and 361. So the same starting points apply online. For penalties and deadlines, see Libel in the Philippines and Cyber libel: can you be sued for a Facebook post?

Whether a defense of truth will work depends on the exact words, the evidence you have, your reasons for publishing, and who the person is. Talk to a lawyer before you publish a serious accusation, and as soon as you receive a libel complaint or subpoena. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines for the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and other options.