ARTICLE 359.

SLANDER BY DEED
ELEMENTS
1. Offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor;
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons;
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.
NOTE:
 Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use of words.
TWO KINDS OF SLANDER BY DEED:
1. Simple slander by deed; and
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a serious nature.
NOTE:
Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious nature or not,
depends on the social standing of the offended party, the circumstances under which
the act was committed, the occasion, etc.

DIGEST: PEOPLE V. MOTITA 59 OG 3020

ARTICLE 360. PERSONS RESPONSIBLE

PERSONS LIABLE FOR LIBEL ARE:
1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar means.
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet.
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial
publication.
 4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent
and all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its
publication. (US vs. Ortiz)

ARTICLE 361. PROOF OF TRUTH

NOTE:
 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.

ARTICLE 362. LIBELOUS REMARKS

Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the
provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor
the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.

ARTICLE 363. INCRIMINATIONG INNOCENT PERSON

Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute
to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto menor
ELEMENTS
1. That the offender performs an act.
2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime.
3. That such act does not constitute perjury.
NOTE:
 This crime cannot be committed through verbal incriminatory statements. It is
defined as an act and, therefore, to commit this crime, more than a mere
utterance is required.
  If the incriminating machination is made orally, the crime may be slander or oral
defamation.
 If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and under oath, the crime
may be perjury if there is a willful falsity of the statements made.
 If the statement in writing is not under oath, the crime may be falsification if the
crime is a material matter made in a written statement which is required by law to
have been rendered.
 As far as this crime is concerned, this has been interpreted to be possible only in
the so-called planting of evidence.

ARTICLE 364. INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR

 This crime is committed by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for
its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of another person.
 Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping. The offender, without
ascertaining the truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the same and pass it on
to another, to the damage of the offended party. Who started the defamatory
news is unknown.

ARTICLE 365. IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE

QUASI-OFFENSE UNDER ARTICLE 365 ARE COMMITTED IN FOUR WAYS:
1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony.
2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony.
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or
simple imprudence or negligence.
4. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

NOTE:
 Imprudence or negligence is the crime itself – not simply a way of committing
a crime. (Atty. Mercader) (Ivler vs. San Pedro)
 Imprudence or negligence simply a way of committing a crime –
ABANDONED DOCTRINE.
 Reckless imprudence – consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or
failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
 inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing
to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
 Simple imprudence – consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those
cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the
danger clearly manifest.

A. ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE

1. That the offender does

or fails to do an
act.
2. That the doing of or
the failure to do
that act is voluntary.
3. That it be without
malice.
4. That material damage
results.
5. That there is
inexcusable lack of
precaution on the party of
the offender,
taking into consideration –
a. His employment or
occupation;
b. Degree of intelligence,
physical
condition; and
c. Other circumstances
regarding
persons, time and place.
1. That the offender does
or fails to do an
act.
2. That the doing of or
the failure to do
that act is voluntary.
3. That it be without
malice.
4. That material damage
results.
5. That there is
inexcusable lack of
precaution on the party of
the offender,
taking into consideration –
a. His employment or
occupation;
b. Degree of intelligence,
physical
condition; and
c. Other circumstances
regarding
persons, time and place.
1. That the offender does or fails to do an act.
2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary.
3. That it be without malice.
4. That material damage results.
That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the party of the offender, taking into
consideration –
a. His employment or occupation;
b. Degree of intelligence, physical condition; and
c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

B. ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE

1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender.

2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is
not clearly manifest.

C. WHEN PENALTIES PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 365 ARE NOT APPLICABLE

1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those
provided in the first two paragraphs of the article, in which case the court shall
impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in
the period which they may deem proper to apply;
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law,
the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

D. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony.
2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony.
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or
simple imprudence or negligence.
4. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

DIGEST: PEOPLE V. CANO 17 SCRA 237

FACTS:
On September 21, 1960, Ambrocio Pineda, the driver and person in charge of La
Mallorca Pambusco Bus handled the bus carelessly, negligent, and imprudently,
causing the bus to hit a Philippine Rabbit Bus, driven by Clemente Onia, thereby
causing harm to the Philippine Rabbit Bus and severe injuries to its passengers. For
months and days, the passengers requested medical assistance. The defendant
entered a plea of not guilty. He then filed a motion to quash the information on the
grounds that; the crime charged slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence
has already prescribed that the Court has no jurisdiction, and that the crime of slight
physical injuries through reckless imprudence cannot be complexed with damage to
property, serious and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
The motion was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime charged, slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence, has already prescribed.
HELD:
Regardless whether the issue adverted above should be decided in the affirmative
or in the negative the proper procedure for the lower court was to reserve the
resolution thereof until after the case has been heard on the merits, when decision is
rendered thereon, there being no question that the court has jurisdiction and can be
properly try the defendant for damage to property and serious or less serious
physical injuries through reckless negligence.
DIGEST: IVLER V. CA
FACTS:
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was
charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MTC), with two separate
offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries
sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s
vehicle.
In both cases, Petitioner had issued bail for his immediate release. On 2004, the
petitioner pleaded guilty to the first criminal count and the public censorship fine was
imposed. Invoking this sentence, the plaintiff sought to quash the Second Criminal
Details for placing him at risk of second penalty for the same careless imprudence
offence.
In both cases, the MTC rejected quashal, finding the name of offenses. The
complainant presented the issue in a petition for certiorari to the Pasig City Regional
Trial Court (RTC), while Ivler requested stay of trials of criminal cases from the MTC,
including the arraignment of his arraignment as a prejudicial question.
Without acting on petitioner’s motion, the MTC proceeded with the arraignment and,
because of petitioner’s absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest.
The MTC released a resolution seven days later refusing the petitioner's motion to
suspend the trial and delay his arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner requested
reconsideration but the request remained pending as at the filing of this complaint.
ISSUES:
1. That the petitioner forfeited his status in order to obtain exemption from his
petition for certiorari when the MTC ordered his arrest after his failure to
appear at the arraignment in Reckless Imprudence resulting in minor physical
injury incurred by the respondent; and
2. If the civil privilege of the plaintiff under the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids
further prosecutions for the death of the husband of the respondent Ponce in
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property

HELD:

1. Petitioner’s non-appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366

did not divest him of personality to maintain the petition in S.C.A. 2803; and
2. The defense provided by the Constitution protects petitioners from lawsuits
which place them at risk of second penalty for the same crime prevents
further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366