The advent of technology such as social media made it easy for rumor mongers and mud-slingers to spread lies and deceptions resulting in tainting an individual's reputation and dignity. These days, destroying a person can be done effortlessly, thanks to a plethora of social media platforms. Fortunately, these acts do not go unpunished because crimes against honor are penalised as stated under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Whether spoken or written, a person who intends to dishonor or discredit a person is held liable for the crime of libel or slander. So, what are the nature and gravity of these crimes?

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is 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.

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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.

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration.

Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.

Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

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. 

The pictorial maxim of three wise monkeys suggests that we should maintain good mind, speech and action. However, in today's world marred by deception, lies and pretensions, turning a blind eye is not an option.  In the digital age, turning to social media is like opening Pandora's box. You will be greeted by a smorgasbord of gossips, fake news and whatnot. 

However, reality does not get any better. You are judged based on your actions and that is the harsh truth everyone wants to hide in a sugar-coated lie. One would say that less talk means less mistake. When everyone is on the safe side, many people becomes a slave to mediocrity, which is quite boring unless you prefer to become completely dead to the world, unperturbed to what is happening around you. 

We are human microscopes prying something out of a hapless specimen. When you just want to call a spade a spade, it does not give you absolute freedom to spew the words without inflicting harm. Call it accusation or allegation, but it has a certain degree of damage that awakens law from its deep slumber.

You mince your words, but without evidence, it becomes a fabricated story...hearsay. The ears can be selective. It can twist your words and even make things more confusing than you know leaving a bad taste in your mouth. I rest my case.

Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Section 1. Burden of Proof… the Duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim by the amount of evidence required by law. This is also known as the Onus Probandi

I. Introduction.

Relationship between allegation and proof. He who alleges must prove. Allegations do not prove themselves. Although plaintiff’s causes of actions are couched in the strongest terms and most persuasive language, the allegations are of no consequence unless they are substantiated. Similarly, in criminal cases, the offense and the aggravating circumstances charged in an Information remain just accusations until they are shown to be true by the presentation of evidence. Defendant is not relieved from liability simply because the raises a defenses. 

II. Distinguished from related concepts:

1. Burden of Proof Proper or Burden of Persuasion or Risk of Non Persuasion- the duty of the party alleging the case to prove it.

a). This lies with the plaintiff

b). This lies too with the defendant as to his defenses and counter-claim

2. Burden of Evidence or Burden of Going Forward- The duty or logical necessity imposed upon a party, at any time during the trial, to establish a prima facie case in his favor or to overcome a prima facie case against him

3. Points of distinction:

a). The former never shifts but remains constant with the party while the latter shifts from one party to the other as the trial progresses

b). In civil cases where it leis is determined by the pleadings while the latter is determined by the rules of logic.

III. Who has the Burden of Proof Proper

1. The general rule is- he who would lose the case if no evidence is presented. Hence it is the plaintiff as to his causes of action, and the defendant as to his counterclaim.

2. In criminal cases, the burden of proving guilt is always the plaintiff/prosecution. But if the accused sets up an affirmative defense, the burden is on him to prove such by “clear, affirmative and strong evidence” 

They say, "stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Words can hurt people and can scar them for life. When a person becomes a victim to the throes of another person's anger, hurtful words become a powerful weapon that pierces through the soul. Some would simply shrug these off, but if words have already tainted one's reputation, honor or character, the matters are taken to court. Libel, oral defamation or slander. These are freedom of speech and expression gone wrong. As they say, too much of everything is bad and even if you only intend to express your anger, discontentment or turmoil towards the person by uttering or writing unpleasant words against him or her, the damage cannot be undone. However, deciphering the intricacies of laws concerning violation of freedom of speech and expression can be quite puzzling. So, how does libel differ from slander?

Libel

Libel, according the to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code is "the 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"

"ART. 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party."

Slander or Oral Defamation

Slander or oral defamation is defined as speaking of base or defamatory words with an intention to prejudice another person in his or her reputation. Slander by deed on the other hand, is an act committed which tends to discredit or dishonor another individual. (Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code)

Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

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.

Whether it is spoken or written, it is every person's responsibility to mince words to avoid hurting another person's feelings. It is true that the freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valued rights, but this does not give you license to say as you please.

Bob Dylan used to say "old habits die hard: the things that are really not important are sometimes the hardest to give up". Perhaps the same principle applies to spreading gossips. When intrusion to someone's privacy becomes a habit, it begins to be part of your system. Although rumor-mongering seems to be a recreation to some, it can still be damaging to one's reputation as it can spread like wild fire. Before you know it, everyone in your community has already heard about a senseless rumor about you. What legal actions can you take against a person who spreads rumors?

Article 26, Chapter 2: Human Relations

"Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Discussion/Explanation:

1. Duty to Respect Dignity and Privacy
This article enhances human digminty and personality. Social equity is noy sought, but due regard for decency and propriety.

2. Remedies
a. An action for damages
b. An action for prevention
c. Any other relief

A civil action may be instituted even if no crime is involved and moral damages may be obtained.

3. Scope
a. Prying into the privacy of another's residence- includes by the implication respect for another's name, picture, or personality except insofar as is needed fro publication of information and pictures of legitimate news value.

b. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another- includes alienation of the affections of the husband or the wife. Thus a girl who makes love to a married man, even if there be no carnal relations, disturbs his family life, and damages may therefore be asked of her. Intriguing against another's honor is also included.

c. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends- includes gossiping, and reliance on hearsay.

d. Vexing or humiliating- includes criticism of one's health or features without justifiable legal cause. Religious freedom does not authorize anyone to heap obloquy and disrepute upon another by reason of the latter's religion."

In this modern day and age, raves and rants are taken to social media and when your post is made available to the public, any defamatory statement can spread like wild fire in just a few clicks. While one can use freedom of speech as an excuse to post anything, it does not give you a license to say something offensive to another person. Libellous statements that can ruin a person’s reputation or image can make you guilty of the crime of libel. 

Just recently, a woman was found guilty of the crime of libel and ordered to pay the sum of 100,000 to the offended party due to malicious posts. Ramada Vallespin admitted to posting defamatory statements and since the posts were set to public, it seems easy for everyone to gain access to the post and hit like, share or comment. 

According to the three witnesses of the aggrieved party, they were able to read Vallespin’s Facebook posts and said the posts where ‘false and highly defamatory’.  The accused did not present any substantial evidence that would vindicate her. The accused party has violated Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.

"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."

President Aquino also enacted Republic Act No. 10175, or also referred to as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The cybercrime offenses mentioned include cybersquatting, child pornography, identity theft, cybersex, libel and illegal access to data.

These cybercrime offenses can be found under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10175. Now that the law has been implemented, the case of Vallespin definitely serves as a warning to those whose fingers are itching to post on Facebook for the purpose of humiliating and destroying a person’s reputation. While Facebook can provide a perfect avenue for expressions, you are still held responsible for what you post. You may still want to think before you type because you might end up in court for your posts.

These days, the prevalence of mud-slinging and cyber-bashing cannot be denied. Even a simple exchange of opinions can turn into a heated argument, thanks to the immense popularity of social networking sites.  The Philippines is considered the social networking capital of the world. Almost everyone has a social media account where they share videos, post opinion or simply connect with loved ones. However, the freedom of expression can also be carried to extremes. This does not come as a surprise considering the fact that many individuals have already filed libel charges against someone who has deliberately dragged their name to shame with their false accusations. 

Libel In A Nutshell 

Under Art. 353, Revised Penal Code (RPC), libel refers to a public and malicious imputation of vice or defect, crime, real or imaginary that can cause the contempt, discredit or dishonor a person. 

There are various ways libel can be committed. A person can commit libel by means of printing, writing, engraving, theatrical exhibition, lithography and others. (Art. 355, RPC). Oral defamation is also referred to as slander according to Art. 358, RPC. When defamation is made in a television, it is also considered libel. 

How can a person be held liable for the crime of libel? 

Any person who published or exhibit any defamation in writing or other means will be held liable for the crime of libel. Aside from the author or editor of the libelous pamphlet or book, the business manager of a daily newspaper will also face charges for the defamation especially if he was proven to be the author of the content or article.  In fact, all people who have active participation in the publication where the libelous article is found will be held liable as well. 

When a person has committed a crime of libel, the action will be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and published. However, if the offended party is a private person, the venue will be his place of residence where the offense was committed and the libelous article was printed and first published. 

The four elements of libel:

• The imputation must be malicious;

• The imputation must be defamatory;

• The imputation must be made publicly;

• The offended party must be identifiable. 

Retraction And The Action For Libel

When a retraction is published to make corrections to the mistake that have been committed, it does not necessarily mean that the accused will be mitigated. For the desired effect to take place, the retraction needs to demonstrate an admission of the falsity of the publication. The desire to repair the incorrectness must also be included in the retraction.