Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code: Malice is presumed (requirement for publicity)
Status: In force
What does Article 354 say?
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.
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 354 says that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true, unless the person who made it shows a good intention and a justifiable motive. There are two exceptions, called privileged communications: a private communication made in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty, and a fair and true report of official proceedings, made in good faith and without comments.
Malice is one of the elements of libel. Because of Article 354, a person who makes a defamatory statement about a private person starts at a disadvantage: the law assumes ill will, and it is up to him or her to show a good reason. The heading of the article on the Supreme Court E-Library is "Requirement for publicity", but its content is about malice.
How does it work in real life?
Nena: a letter to the school principal
Nena writes a private letter to the school principal, saying that a teacher has been absent and has asked students for money. She sends it only to the principal, who has the duty to act. This may be a privileged private communication under paragraph 1, so malice is not presumed. If Nena had posted the same letter on a public Facebook group, the exception would be harder to claim.
Ramon: a report on a court hearing
Ramon, a local radio reporter, reports accurately what a witness said in an open court hearing, without adding his own remarks. This fits the fair and true report exception in paragraph 2.
Bea: a true story told to shame
Bea tells a group chat that her former friend was once arrested, which is true, only to embarrass her. Article 354 presumes malice "even if it be true". Bea would have to show a good intention and a justifiable motive, which shaming someone does not obviously give. See Article 361 on proof of the truth.
What does this mean in practice?
- The exceptions are narrow. A privileged communication sent to many people, or a report with added comments, may lose its protection.
- Being true is not enough on its own. The defense of truth has its own conditions in Article 361. See is truth a defense in libel?
- The same rules apply to cyber libel, which adopts the Code's definition of libel. See cyber libel and Facebook posts.
- For penalties and deadlines, see libel penalty in the Philippines.
What does "presumed malice" mean?
It means the prosecution does not have to prove malice when the statement is defamatory and the offended party is a private person. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Supreme Court explained that the law presumes malice ("malice in law") from the defamatory character of the statement. For his defense, the accused must show a justifiable reason for the statement, even if it was in fact true.
The presumption is not the end of the case. The accused can overcome it by showing a good intention and justifiable motive, or by showing that the statement falls under one of the two exceptions below.
What are the two privileged communications?
The article names them:
- A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
- 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.
In simple words:
- A private communication made out of duty. For example, a letter to a person who has the authority or the duty to act on it. It must be private, and it must be made because of a legal, moral or social duty.
- A fair and true report of official proceedings. For example, a news report of what was said in a court hearing or a session of the city council. It must be fair, true, in good faith, without added comments, and the proceedings must not be confidential.
For these two cases, malice is not presumed.
What about public officials and public figures?
Disini adds a stricter rule. Where the offended party is a public official or a public figure, the Court said the prosecution must prove "actual malice": that the person made the statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The Court explained that society's interest and good government call for a full discussion of public affairs. Disini also upheld Article 354 itself as constitutional.
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
Frequently asked questions
What does presumed malice mean in libel?
Article 354 says every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if it is true, unless the person who made it shows a good intention and a justifiable motive. For a private offended party, the prosecution does not have to prove malice; the accused has to show the justification.
What is a privileged communication?
It is one of the two exceptions in Article 354, where malice is not presumed: a private communication made in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty, and a fair and true report, made in good faith and without comments, of official proceedings.
Is a true statement still presumed malicious?
Yes. Article 354 presumes malice 'even if it be true', unless a good intention and justifiable motive are shown. Truth helps as a defense only under the conditions of Article 361: good motives and justifiable ends.
Does presumed malice apply when the victim is a politician?
In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Supreme Court said that where the offended party is a public official or a public figure, the prosecution must prove actual malice: that the statement was made knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?