Pedir consejo

Crimes against honor

1. Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. 355);

2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation (Art. 356);

3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings (Art. 357);

4. Slander (Art. 358);

5. Slander by deed (Art. 359);

6. Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363);

7. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).

Article 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 circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Elements:

1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or

circumstance;

2. The imputation must be made publicly;

3. It must be malicious;

4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead;

5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.

Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law

Malice in fact is the malice which the law presumes from every statement whose tenor is defamatory. It does not need proof. The mere fact that the utterance or statement is defamatory negates a legal presumption of malice.

In the crime of libel, which includes oral defamation, there is no need for the prosecution to present evidence of malice. It is enough that the alleged defamatory or libelous statement be presented to the court verbatim. It is the court which will prove whether it is defamatory or not. If the tenor of the utterance or statement is defamatory, the legal presumption of malice arises even without proof.

Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law has been rebutted. Otherwise, there is no need to adduce evidence of malice in fact. So, while malice in law does not require evidence, malice in fact requires evidence.

Malice in law can be negated by evidence that, in fact, the alleged libelous or defamatory utterance was made with good motives and justifiable ends or by the fact that the utterance was privileged in character.

In law, however, the privileged character of a defamatory statement may be absolute or qualified.

When the privileged character is said to be absolute, the statement will not be actionable whether criminal or civil because that means the law does not allow prosecution on an action based thereon.

Illustration:

As regards the statements made by Congressmen while they are deliberating or discussing in Congress, when the privileged character is qualified, proof of malice in fact will be admitted to take the place of malice in law. When the defamatory statement or utterance is

qualifiedly privileged, the malice in law is negated. The utterance or statement would not be actionable because malice in law does not exist. Therefore, for the complainant to prosecute the accused for

libel, oral defamation or slander, he has to prove that the accused was actuated with malice (malice in fact) in making the statement.

When a libel is addressed to several persons, unless they are

identified in the same libel, even if there are several persons offended by the libelous utterance or statement, there will only be one count of libel.

If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified, even though the libel was committed at one and the same time, there will be as many libels as there are persons dishonored.

Illustration:

If a person uttered that “All the Marcoses are thieves," there will only be one libel because these particular Marcoses regarded as thieves are not specifically identified.

If the offender said, “All the Marcoses – the father, mother and daughter are thieves.” There will be three counts of libel because each person libeled is distinctly dishonored.

If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you cannot consider one libel as giving rise to several counts of libel. In order that one defamatory utterance or imputation may be considered as having dishonored more than one person, those persons dishonored must be identified. Otherwise, there will only be one count of libel.

Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be expressly identified. It is enough that he could possibly be identified because

“innuendos may also be a basis for prosecution for libel. As a matter of fact, even a compliment which is undeserved, has been held to be libelous.

The crime is libel is the defamation is in writing or printed media.

The crime is slander or oral defamation if it is not printed.

Even if what was imputed is true, the crime of libel is committed unless one acted with good motives or justifiable end. Poof of truth of a defamatory imputation is not even admissible in evidence, unless what was imputed pertains to an act which constitutes a crime and

when the person to whom the imputation was made is a public officer and the imputation pertains to the performance of official duty. Other than these, the imputation is not admissible.

When proof of truth is admissible

1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a private individual or a public officer;

2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not constitute a crime, provided if its related to the discharged of his official duties.

Requisites of defense in defamation

1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true;

2. It was published with good motives;

3. It was for justifiable ends.

If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be prosecuted de officio. A complaint from the offended party is necessary.

Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or Similar Means A libel may be committed by means of –

1. Writing;

2. Printing;

3. Lithography;

4. Engraving;

5. Radio;

6. Photograph;

7. Painting;

8. Theatrical exhibition;

9. Cinematographic exhibition; or 10. Any similar means.

Article 356. Threatening to Publish and Offer to Prevent Such Publication for A Compensation

Acts punished

1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other members of his family;

2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for compensation or money consideration.

Blackmail – In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be defined as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure.

Two words are expressive of the crime – hush money. (US v. Eguia, et al., 38 Phil. 857) Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283; and (2) threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for compensation, under Article 356.

Article 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to in the Course of Official Proceedings

Elements

1. Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine;

2. He publishes facts connected with the private life of another;

3. Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person.

The provisions of Article 357 constitute the so-called "Gag Law."

Article 358. Slander

Slander is oral defamation. There are tow kinds of oral defamation:

(1) Simple slander; and

(2) Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting nature.

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.

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.

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.

Article 363. Incriminating Innocent Persons Elements

1. Offender performs an act;

2. By such an act, he incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime;

3. Such act does not constitute perjury.

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.

Distinction between intriguing against honor and slander:

When the source of the defamatory utterance is unknown and the offender simply repeats or passes the same, the crime is intriguing against honor.

If the offender made the utterance, where the source of the

defamatory nature of the utterance is known, and offender makes a republication thereof, even though he repeats the libelous statement as coming from another, as long as the source is identified, the crime committed by that offender is slander.

Distinction between intriguing against honor and incriminating an innocent person:

In intriguing against honor, the offender resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of blemishing the honor or reputation of another person.

In incriminating an innocent person, the offender performs an act by which he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.