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. 

Libel is defined by Art. 252 of the Revised Penal Code as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or 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.

Unlike slander, a person is liable for the crime of libel by means of printing, writing, engraving, or radio and other similar means. These days, media has been instrumental to the widespread of information or sometimes, misinformation. Be it in politics, business, health and whatnot, it plays a huge role in influencing people especially during the 2016 Presidential Election. While most people already know who to root for, a small fraction of voters were still undecided. In this case, they rely heavily on the information they obtain from radio, television and even social media. 

Under 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.

Election was also a time for mudslinging and because of this, some decided voters were not yet immune to persuasion. Public figures who want to protect their reputation bring matters to court. Media men who are accused of libel will often use Doctrine of Absolute Privileged Communication as a defense to libel. It is interesting to note that this defense needs to meet the requirement of publicity. 

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.

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” 

The digital era, where anyone can bask in the glory of anonymity, has proven that thoughts indeed travel faster than the speed of light. What used to be a cosmic phenomenon has now been a virtual phenomenon. Everyone yearns to enjoy freedom of speech, but when is too much, too much?

Now that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or the Republic Act 10175 has been strengthened, it has also tightened its grip on people violating the law. Andre Philippe LaFlamme, an American national has been found guilty of online libel due to his caustic remarks against his colleague in 2014.

LeFlamme's Facebook posts from 2014 through 2016 pointed to one direction: defaming plaintiff Quennie Samane. A P120,000 bail has already been set to grant LaFlamme's temporary freedom. The posts contained derogatory remarks that tainted the plaintiff's good reputation.

One post showed a photograph of Samane with the heading "I'd do anything for money." Aside from the case of online libel LaFlamme has yet to face another complaint due to threatening other employees. 

The prosecutor will file a warrant of arrest after LaFlamme failed to submit his counter-affidavit.

The violation that LaFlamme committed falls under Article 353, 354 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

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.

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:

A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and

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 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.

The case is also in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

A typical day in the life of a mouse potato usually starts with checking some share-worthy news on Facebook and Twitter. Some rely more on social media for some juicy tidbits than reading the newspaper. So if you are looking for some words of wastedom, err wisdom, the Internet is probably the suitable place you would consider going to. In a world of fake, would you still put your trust in news you come across online? While it may seem legitimate, the information is either half-baked or for lack of a better term, not baked at all. Whether the news is about a celebrity who died of suicide, a prime minister commending a politician for his exemplary performance or a wonder cure for a disease you cannot even pronounce, fake news stays in the realm of fiction.

Facebook alone has about 1.7 billion users and it has become a breeding ground for fake stories and misinformation. Anything with a catchy headline is worth sharing right? Everyone can fall prey to what seemed like a compelling piece of information, but sharing or spreading fake news or believing in one is just as bad as rumor mongering. It misleads people, creates chaos, causes disarray, and even damage a person. If you are unsure of the source, it is much better to dissect the information before spreading the word.

Also, the following sites are only meant to entertain. Whenever you come across satirical articles on these sites, please keep in mind that they are intended to inject humor, sarcasm and irony.

1.Professional Heckler (https://professionalheckler.com)

2.Adobo Chronicles (https://adobochronicles.com/)

3.Mosquito Press (http://mosquitopress.tumblr.com/)

4.Agila News (https://agilanews.wordpress.com)

5.So, What’s News? (https://sowhatsnews.wordpress.com/)

DECLARING UNLAWFUL RUMOR-MONGERING AND SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION

WHEREAS, a primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972 is the early restoration of peace, order and tranquility throughout the country;

WHEREAS, one of the most insidious means of disrupting such peace, order and tranquility is the utterance, publication, distribution, circulation and spread of rumors, false news or information and gossip that cause divisive effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted authorities and/or that undermine the stability of the government and the objectives of the New Society and, therefore, inimical to the best interests of the State;

WHEREAS, to attain the aforesaid primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081, it is imperative that such acts be curbed and penalized;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, do hereby order and decree that any person who shall offer, publish, distribute, circulate and spread rumors, false news and information and gossip, or cause the publication, distribution, circulation or spreading of the same, which cause or tend to cause panic, divisive effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted authorities, undermine the stability of the Government and the objectives of the New Society, endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State shall, upon conviction, be punished by prision correccional. In case the offender is a government official or employee, the accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification from holding any public office shall be imposed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of January, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-three.

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.