Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code: Proof of the truth in libel
Status: In force
What does Article 361 say?
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 defendant 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.
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 361 says that in a libel case the accused may prove that what he or she said is true. Truth leads to acquittal only if the statement was also published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Proof of the truth of a non-criminal act or omission is not even admitted, unless the statement was about a government employee's official duties.
This article works together with Article 354, which presumes malice in every defamatory imputation "even if it be true". Article 361 tells the accused what must be shown to win despite that presumption.
How does it work in real life?
Gina: reporting a real theft
Gina posts a warning in her subdivision's group that a named delivery helper stole a package from her gate, and she has CCTV footage. Theft is a crime, so the truth may be proven. If the court finds the post true and made with good motives and for justifiable ends, such as warning neighbors, the article says she shall be acquitted.
Rey: exposing a private secret
Rey tells a group of coworkers that a colleague is deep in debt and was left by her husband. Even if it is true, these are not crimes, and the colleague is not a government employee. As written, Article 361 does not admit proof of the truth of such an imputation. Rey cannot win by showing it is true.
Lani: complaining about a clerk at city hall
Lani writes that a clerk at the city hall permits office regularly comes in late and leaves the counter empty. Being late is not a crime, but the clerk is a government employee and the facts relate to official duties. Lani may prove the truth, and the article says that if she does, she shall be acquitted.
What does this mean in practice?
- The accused carries the burden of proving the truth and, under paragraph 1, the good motives and justifiable ends.
- Whether a statement had good motives and justifiable ends depends on the facts: what was said, to whom, and why. A true statement spread mainly to humiliate may fail that condition.
- Privileged communications under Article 354 are a separate defense.
- Full overview: is truth a defense in libel? and libel penalty in the Philippines.
When is truth a defense in libel?
The first paragraph sets two conditions, and both must be met:
- The statement is true. The accused proves it in court.
- It was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. The accused had a proper reason to make it public, not only to hurt or shame the person.
In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Supreme Court described the rule the same way: Article 361 recognizes truth as a defense, but on condition that the accused was prompted by good motives and for justifiable ends. The Court upheld the article as constitutional.
What is the rule for imputations of non-criminal acts?
The second paragraph limits what may be proven:
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.
As written, the article draws three lines:
| What the statement imputes | Can the truth be proven? | Result if proven |
|---|---|---|
| A crime | Yes | Acquittal if also published with good motives and for justifiable ends (paragraph 1) |
| A non-criminal act or omission, except one of a government employee related to official duties | No, the proof is not admitted (paragraph 2) | Truth is not available as a defense |
| A non-criminal act or omission of a government employee, related to official duties | Yes (paragraph 2) | Acquittal (paragraph 3) |
How does this fit with public officials and actual malice?
Disini adds 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. For private persons, malice is presumed under Article 354, and the accused must show a justifiable reason for the statement even if it was true.
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
Frequently asked questions
Is truth a defense in libel in the Philippines?
Only with conditions. Under Article 361, the accused is acquitted if the statement is true and, in addition, was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Truth alone is not enough.
Can the truth of an imputation of a non-criminal act be proven?
As written, Article 361 says proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission that is not a crime is not admitted, unless the imputation was made against government employees about facts related to their official duties.
What if I accused a government employee of misconduct in office?
The second and third paragraphs of Article 361 say that when the imputation is against a government employee about facts related to the discharge of official duties, proof of the truth is admitted, and the accused who proves it is acquitted.
Did the Supreme Court uphold Article 361?
Yes. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Court upheld Articles 353, 354 and 361 as constitutional and noted that Article 361 recognizes truth as a defense on condition of good motives and justifiable ends.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?