Art. 353.

Definition of Libel
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,
or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Libel is a defamation committed by means of:
writing,
printing,
lithography,
engraving,
radio,
phonograph,
painting or
theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any
similar means.
Defamation - includes libel and slander, means the offense of
injuring a persons character, fame or reputation through false and
malicious statements.

Defamation is composed of:

(1) Libel written defamation
(2) Slander- oral defamation
(3) Slander by deed defamation through acts
 a). The facilities of the mass media i.e print and broadcast media such
as articles, news items, columns, caricatures, editorials in newspapers
and magazines; comments, opinions, news aired over the television or
radio stations

b). Modern communication facilities such as through the internet

or cellphones, CDs, DVDs

b). Literary outlets such as through letters, books, poems, songs, stage
plays, movies, paintings, drawings, pictures, sculpture and the like
(a) There must be an imputation of (1) a crime, (2) a vice or defect, real
or imaginary, or (3) any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
(b) The imputation must be made publicly;
(c) It must be malicious;
(d) The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or
one who is dead;/ the person libeled is identified
(e) The imputation must tend to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of
the offended party.
(a)

=Imputation of a criminal act may be implied from the acts and

statements of the accused.

=Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous.

=An expression of opinion by one affected by the act of another and

based on actual fact is not libelous.
a). What should be considered is what the matter conveyed to a fair and
reasonable man and not the intention of the author or the accused.

b). Statements should not be interpreted by taking the words one by one
out of context; they must be taken in their entirety.

c). Words are to be given the ordinary meaning as are commonly

understood and accepted in the in daily life. The technical meanings do
not apply. This is especially true to idiomatic sayings.
Ex: Babae ng Bayan does not mean a heroine. Hayok sa Laman
does not mean a meat eater.
a). By the use of direct and express defamatory words,
descriptions or accusations

b). By the use of Figures of Speech

 Words commonly used as expletives (eksplitiv), denoting anger or disgust
rather than as defamation
Expressions of an opinion made by one who is entitled to state an opinion on a
subject in which he is interested.

Examples:

A lady complains over the radio that there was discrimination against Cordillera
women in the selection of candidates to the Miss Baguio Pageant

A teacher declared in an interview that the students of one school are less
intelligent than those in another school
(b)

(A). The addressing of defamatory words directly to the person

concerned, and to no other person, does not constitute an
actionable libel.

(B). If it was the victim himself and not the accused, who showed,
informed or relayed the libelous material to others, then the
accused is not liable.

(C). Circulation or publicity is not necessarily through the

newspaper.
 Examples:

i). Posting the material in the internet or posting in a bulletin board

ii) Announcements in the radio, or paid advertisements such as The

public is warned not to purchase the skin lotion products of ABC Corp.
to prevent possible cancer

iii). Asking someone to write a defamatory letter about the victim

iv). Sending the letter to the victim through a messenger but it is in an

unsealed envelope ( the presumption is that the letter is intended to be
read by anyone other than the victim). Thus if the letter is sent in a
sealed envelope, the element of publicity is missing.
Effect:
Each separate publication of a libelous matter is a separate crime,
whether published in part, or in the same newspaper.

Example:
If the same libelous news is published in two or more newspapers, then
there will be such number of separate libels corresponding to the
different newspapers which published the material.
 (c)

Malice is the legal term to denote that the accused is motivated by

personal ill-will, spite, hatred, jealousy, anger, and speaks not in
response to duty but to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. The
purpose is really to destroy, to injure, to inflict harm.

two kinds of malice

a). Malice in Law or Presumed Malice.

b). Malice in Fact or Malice as a Fact

The plaintiff need not prove the existence of malice. It is for the accused
to disprove this presumption.

Even if the publication is injurious, the presumption of malice disappears

upon proof of good intentions and justifiable motive. ( privileged comm.)

ex:

X calls the radio and announces that the family of Juan de la Cruz is a
family of thieves.
It is the malice which must be proven by the plaintiff. He must
prove the purpose of the accused which is to harm or injure
his reputation. This arises either because:

(i) the article is not defamatory on its face or if libelous it is

ambiguous

(ii) the accused was able to overcome the presumption of

malice
the complainant or plaintiff must prove he is the person
subject of the libelous matter, that it his reputation which
was targeted
a). Directly by his name
b). By descriptions of his person, his address, nature of his office or
work, his actions, or any other data personally connected or related
to the plaintiff; or identification from similar other circumstances
c) From the likeness of his face or features to the libelous drawing,
caricature, painting or sculpture

The victims maybe natural persons who are alive or juridical

persons, or deceased persons as to their memory.
a). If several persons were libeled in one article, but all are
identifiable, then there are as many charges as there are
persons libeled

b). If the article is directed to a class or group of several

persons in general terms only without specifying any particular
member, there is no victim identified or identifiable, hence
there is no actionable libel. No person can claim to have been
specifically libeled as to give that person the right to file
charges of libel.
 c). If the defamation is directed against a group or class and
the statement is all-embracing as to apply to every member
of that group or class, then any member can file an action for
libel in his own name, not in the name of the
group/class. (Note: Philippine laws do not recognize group
libel). Or if the statement is sufficiently specific so that each
individual can prove that the statement specifically point to
him then he may bring an action in his own name.
d). But even if directed against a group or class but the
statement is directly and personally addressed to a member or
members thereof, then only such member(s) can bring an
action.

Example: A radio announcer addresses himself to Mr. X and

Mr. Y and says: Mr. X, and you Mr. Y. You Pangalatoks are
sex maniacs.
Only Mr. X and Mr. Y can file an action for libel.
Dishonor disgrace, shame or ignominy
Discredit loss of credit of reputation; disesteem
Contempt state of being despised

For a statement to be considered malicious, it must be shown that

it was written or published with the knowledge that they are false or
in reckless disregard
Reckless disregard the defendant entertains serious doubt as to
the truth of the publication, or that he possesses a high degree of
awareness of their probable falsity.
A. Remedies of the Victim:

(i) the person libeled may file a criminal case or a

separate civil case for damages
(ii) but he may opt to recover damages in the same
criminal case
B. Jurisdiction and Venue of the criminal action
1. a). Actions based on libel, whether civil or criminal, are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court even if the penalty
is within the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts.

b).The civil case must also be tried in the RTC trying the criminal
case (No separate civil action)

c) If the libel imputes any of the private crimes, the Prosecution

must be upon a complaint filed by the offended party
2. Venue: as a general rule the action for libel shall be in the
RTC of the province/city where the article was first printed
and published ( Rule of Place of First Print and Publication)
but it may also be filed elsewhere as follows:
a). If a private person: in the RTC of the province/city where
he resides
b). If a public official and holding office in Manila: In the RTC
of Manila
c) If a public official holding office outside Manila: in the RTC
of the province/city where he holds office
1. In case of written libel:

a). The Authors of the written defamatory article, the artists, sculptor, or
painter

b). Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or
exhibition thereof ( i.e. those persons other than the author, who make
known the libelous matter to a third person)

c). the editor or business manager of the print media where the article
was published
 a). the speaker, announcer or utterer of the defamatory
statements aired over the broadcast media; the host of the show
where the libelous statement is made

b). the producers and makers of the libelous cinematographic film,

stage show, play or drama
Absolutely Privileged Communication: this refers to a
communication, whether oral or written which is defamatory and
may even be made in bad faith but which cannot give rise to either
criminal or civil liability. This is because there are higher
considerations involved which are considered more paramount
than the damage to the reputation of a person.
Qualifiedly/Conditionally Privileged Communication: this refers
to communications in which the law presumes the absence of
malice, thus they are initially not actionable. The burden therefore
is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of actual malice.
1. A private communication made by any person to another in
the performance of any legal, moral or social duty.

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 the
proceedings, or any other act performed by public officers
in the exercise of their functions.
(i). The person who made the communication had a legal, moral or
social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest
to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to
whom it is made

(ii). The communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or

superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has
the power to furnish the protection sought ( or that the recipient is a
proper person who can act on the communication) and

(iii). The statements in the communication are made in good faith

and without malice ( Binay vs. Sec. of Justice, Sept. 08, 2006)
 The report must be without any unnecessary comment or
libelous remarks ( i.e. no editorializing)

The report must be accurate and should not intentionally

distort the facts. If there is error in the facts reported, the
report is still privilege if made in good faith
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, providing for Guidelines in the
Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties
in Libel Cases, instructs all courts and judges to take note of
certain preferences in imposing penalties for the crime of libel. The
Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and
taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve
the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose
imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense,
work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperatives of justice.
Libel (2002)
A. A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive
Branch of the government. His nomination was thereafter
submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation.
While the Commission was considering the nomination, a group of
concerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a
full-page statement objecting to A's appointment They alleged that
A was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that
he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties
transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was
unfit for the position to which he had been nominated. As a result of
the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. The official sued the concerned
citizens and the newspapers for libel and damages on account of
his non-confirmation. How will you decide the case? (3%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers
involved, from the crime of libel, because obviously they made the denunciation out of
a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice.

Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a Department

Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the public trust in such position
becomes a public concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to
such concern that the denunciation was made; hence, bereft of malice. B. If
defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by
broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast

Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code punishes libel committed by means, among
others, of radio broadcast, inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public and
may be defamatory.
 Libel (2003) During a seminar workshop attended by
government employees from the Bureau of Customs and the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of
his lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those
serving in said agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt.
The following morning, the whole group of employees in the
two bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants,
filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering what the
group claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. In
court, A filed a motion to quash the information, reciting fully
the above facts, on the ground that no crime were committed.
If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? 8%
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would grant the motion to quash
on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, since there is no definite person or persons
dishonored. The crime of libel or slander, is a crime against
honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be
identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against
honor is not committed. Moreover, A was not making a
malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he was
delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar
workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance,
the statement is not actionable as defamatory.
 Libel (2005) In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered
defamatory statements against Erika, a successful and reputable
businesswoman. What crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain.
(3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Cindee committed libel for uttering

defamatory remarks tending to cause dishonor or discredit to Erika.
Libel can be committed in television programs or broadcasts, though
it was not specifically mentioned in the article since it was not yet in
existence then, but is included as "any similar means." Defamatory
statements aired on television is similar to radio, theatrical exhibition
or cinematographic exhibition, which are among the modes for the
commission of libel. (Arts. 353 and 355, RPC)
 Libel; Defamatory Utterances against Public Figure
(2013) No. IV. In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi
wrote an unflattering article about Pablo, a famous singer,
and his bitter separation from his wife. The article portrayed
Pablo as an abusive husband and caused him to lose
lucrative endorsement contracts. Pablo charged Gigi with
libel. In her defense, Gigi countered that she did not commit
libel because Pablo has attained the status of a public figure
so that even his personal life has become a legitimate
subject of public interest and comment. Is Gigi correct? (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Gigi is nor correct. Although wider latitude is given to
defamatory utterances against public figures in relation to
matters of public interest involving them, such defamatory
utterances fo not automatically fall within the ambit of
constitutionally protected speech. If the utterances are false,
malicious or unrelated to a public figures work, the same may
give rise to criminal liblity (Fermin v. People, GR No. 157643,
March 28, 2008). Any attack upon the private character of the
public figure on matters which are not related to their works may
constitute liber under Article 355 (Sazon v. Hon. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 120715, March 29, 1996). Here, Gigi was
attacking the personal life of Pablo as a husband and not his
public life as a famous singer.
Libel; Proof of Truth (2009) In the crime of libel, truth is an
absolute defense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, Art. 361 of the RPC provides
that proof of truth shall be admissible in libel cases only if the
same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with
repect to fact related to the discharge of their official duties,
and moreover must have been published with good motives
and for justifiable ends. Hence, truth as a defense, on its
own, is not enough.
Libel; Unfair Competition (2010) No. XI. Angelina maintains a website
where visitors can give their comments on the posted pictures of the goods
she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a comment that the red
Birkin bag shown in Angelinas website is fake and that Angelina is known to
sell counterfeit items. Angelina wants to file a case against Bettina. She
seeks your advice. What advice will you give her? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will advise Anglina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina because
the imputations made by Bettina is libelous. Whether the imputation of a
defect, status or condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly tend to discredit,
dishonor or place in contempt or ridicule a particular person who is
identified, the imputation I presumed by law to be malicious and thus
penalized as libel under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, if
Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her statement against the goods
sold by Angelina may constitute a violation of the law on Unfair Competition
(Rep. Act No. 8291).
 http://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/criminal-law/crimes-and-penalties/1079-
libel.html
http://jlp-law.com/blog/guidelines-in-imposing-penalties-for-libel-questions-and-
answers/
http://jlp-law.com/blog/guidelines-rule-of-preference-in-penalties-in-libel-cases-
administrative-circular-08-2008/
http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/
http://news.abs-cbn.com/-depth/09/19/12/internet-libel-may-lead-12-years-prison
Reyes 2012
2015 UP COL Criminal Law Reviewer