Regardless of our emotional state, our actions speak volumes. In the throes of anger, non-verbal cues can be considered to be an expression, but when you go overboard and carry your anger to extremes, you can be held liable for a crime of slander by deed. There is completely nothing wrong with expressing one’s emotional state so long as the actions are not aimed at someone. Slander by deed may seem like a new legal concept as oral defamation is commonly used to describe an individual who has spoken defamatory words which can affect another person’s reputation. What if a person pokes a dirty finger at another person, can the act be deemed as slander by deed?
As defined in Art. 359, “Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.”
A person cannot be considered guilty of committing slander by deed without taking the nature of the complaint into consideration. If there was provocation on the part of the complainant, slander by deed has a lesser magnitude. Pointing a dirty finger is not held to be libelous. It is considered as a common expression used for expressing displeasure, turmoil, discontentment or anger. However, a person may be found guilty of grave oral defamation or slander by deed if the complainant did not contribute to the offender’s anger.
“Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — 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.
Art. 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.”
