4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

1.Whatislibel?

Libelisapublicandmaliciousimputationofacrime,oraviceordefect,realorimaginary,oranyact,
omission,condition,status,orcircumstancetendingtocausethedishonor,discredit,orcontemptofa
naturalorjuridicalperson,ortoblackenthememoryofonewhoisdead.(Art.353,RevisedPenal
Code,[RPC]).

2.Whatarethemeansbywhichlibeliscommitted?

Libeliscommittedbymeansofwriting,printing,lithography,engraving,radio,phonograph,painting,
theatricalexhibition,cinematographicexhibition,oranysimilarmeans.(Art.355,RPC).

3.Whatisslander?

Oraldefamationiscalledslander.(Art.358,RPC).

4.Isdefamationmadeinatelevisionprogramconsideredlibel?

Defamationmadeinatelevisionprogramislibel.Whilethemediumoftelevisionisnotexpressly
mentionedamongthemeansspecifiedinthelaw,iteasilyqualifiesunderthegeneralprovisionor
anysimilarmeans.(Peoplevs.Casten,etal.,CAG.R.No.07924CR,December13,1974)

5.Whoarethepersonsliableforthecrimeoflibel?

Anypersonwhoshallpublish,exhibit,orcausethepublicationorexhibitionofanydefamationin
writingorbysimilarmeans,shallberesponsibleforthesame.

Theauthororeditorofabookorpamphlet,ortheeditororbusinessmanagerofadailynewspaper,
magazineorserialpublication,shallberesponsibleforthedefamationscontainedthereintothe
sameextentasifheweretheauthorthereof.(Art.360,RPC).

Proprietorsandeditorsofperiodicalsareresponsiblefortheappearanceofdefamatorymatter
containedtherein,aslikewiseareallpersonswhoactuallyparticipateinthepublicationofsuch
matter.Itisnotnecessarythatthelibelousmattershouldhavebeenseenorreadbyanother.Itis
sufficientthattheaccusedknowinglypartedwiththeimmediatecustodythereofundercircumstances
whichexposedittobereadorseenbyapersonotherthanhimself.

6.Whatarethepenaltiesforlibel?

a.Forcommittedlibel:Prisioncorrectionalinitsminimumandmediumperiodsorafinerangingfrom
200to600pesos,orboth.Thisisinadditiontothecivilactionwhichmaybebroughtbytheoffended
party.(Art.355,RPC)

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 1/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

b.Forthreatenedlibel(blackmail):Arrestomayororafineoffrom200to2,000pesosorboth.
(Art.356,RPC)

7.Whyislibelpunished?

Theenjoymentofaprivatereputationisasmuchaconstitutionalrightasthepossessionoflife,
libertyorproperty.Itisoneofthoserightsnecessarytohumansocietythatunderliethewhole
schemeofcivilization.Thelawrecognizesthevalueofsuchreputationandimposesuponhimwho
attacksit,byslanderouswordsorlibelouspublication,theliabilitytomakefullcompensationforthe
damagesdone(Worcestervs.Ocampo,22Phil.42).

8.Whatcourthasjurisdictionoveranactionforlibel?

TheRegionalTrialCourthasbeenspecificallydesignatedtotryalibelcase.(Art.360,RevisedPenal
CodeJalandonivs.Endaya,55SCRA260Bacobovs.Estanislao,72SCRA520)

9.Whereisthevenueforanactionforlibel?

Art.360oftheRPCasamendedbyRepublicActNo.4363laiddownthefollowingrulesonthevenue
ofthecriminalandcivilactionsinwrittendefamations:

1.GeneralRule:TheactionmaybefiledintheRegionalTrialCourtoftheprovinceorcitywherethe
libelousarticleisprintedandfirstpublishedorwhereanyoftheoffendedpartiesactuallyresidesat
thetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense.

2.IftheoffendedpartyisapublicofficerwithofficeinManilaatthetimetheoffensewascommitted,
thevenueisManilaorthecityorprovincewherethelibelousarticleisprintedandfirstpublished.

3.WhereanoffendedpartyisapublicofficialwithofficeoutsideofManila,thevenueistheprovince
orthecitywhereheheldofficeatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffenseorwherethelibelous
articleisprintedandfirstpublished.

4.Ifanoffendedpartyisaprivateperson,thevenueishisplaceofresidenceatthetimeofthe
commissionoftheoffenseorwherethelibelousarticleisprintedandfirstpublished.

Thecommonfeatureoftheforegoingrulesisthatwhethertheoffendedpartyisapublicofficerora
privateperson,hehasalwaystheoptiontofiletheactionintheRegionalTrialCourtoftheprovince
orcitywherethelibelousarticleisprintedorfirstpublished.(Escribanovs.Avila,85SCRA245)

10.Whatistheprescriptiveperiodforfilingacriminalcomplaintforlibel?

Thecrimeoflibelprescribesinoneyearfromthedatetheallegedlibelousarticlewaspublished.(Art.
90,RPCasamendedbyRepublicActNo.4661Peoplevs.Gines,197SCRA481)

11.Whatarethedamagesrecoverableinanactionforlibel?

Article2219(7)oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatmoraldamagesmayberecoveredincasesoflibel,
http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 2/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

slanderoranyotherformofdefamation.Ineffect,theoffendedpartyinthesecasesisgiventheright
toreceivefromtheguiltypartymoraldamagesforinjurytohisfeelingsandreputationinadditionto
punitiveorexemplarydamages.(Occenavs.Icamina,181SCRA328M.H.Wylievs.Rarang,209
SCRA357)

12.Inwhatcourtshouldthecivilactionfordamagesbefiled?

Thecivilactionforlibelshallbefiledinthesamecourtwherethecriminalactionisfiledandvice
versaandthecourtinwhichtheactionisfirstfiledacquiresexclusivejurisdictiontoentertainthe
correspondingcomplaintforlibel.(Art.360,RevisedPenalCodeasamendedbyRepublicActNo.
1289Laquianvs.Baltazar,31SCRA552Agbayanivs.Sayo,89SCRA699Cojuangco,Hr.vs.CA,
203SCRA620)

13.Whocanfileacomplaintforlibel?

Acriminalactionfordefamationwhichconsistsintheimputationofacrimewhichcannotbe
prosecuteddeoficiocanonlybefiledbytheoffendedparty.(Art.360,RPC).

But,alibelattributingadefectorvice,realorimaginary,whichdoesnotconstituteacrimebutbrings
intodisrepute,scornorridicule,ortendstocausedishonor,discredit,orcontempt,canbe
prosecuteddeoficio.Inotherwords,thecomplaintoftheoffendedpartyisnotnecessary,andthe
informationfiledbytheprosecutingofficerisenoughtoconferjurisdictionuponthecourttotrythe
defendantchargedwiththecrime.(Santos,etal.vs.Guballa,No.L7316andL7317,Dec.19,
1955).

Inotherwords,theprovincialfiscalmayfiletheinformationuponhisowninitiativewithoutthe
offendedpartyscomplaintandevenoverhisobjection.(Peoplevs.Pascual,etal.,102Phil.503).

14.Whatarethecrimeswhichcannotbeprosecuteddeoficio?

Thecrimesofadultery,concubinage,abduction,rapeoractsoflasciviousnesscannotbeprosecuted
deoficio.Accordingly,alibelimputinganyofthesecrimescanbefiledbytheoffendedparty.

15.Cananimputationofthecrimeofprostitutionbeprosecuteddeoficio?

Yes,animputationofthecrimeofprostitutioncanbeprosecuteddeoficio.(Peoplevs.Orcullo,111
SCRA609).Prostitutionisnotincludedamongthecrimeswhichcannotbeprosecuteddeoficio.

16.Exampleofimputationofacrimewhichcannotbeprosecuteddeoficio.

Apublishedletterstatingthatawomanemployeehadillicitrelationshipwithanotherwhoisthe
formersparamourimputesanadulterousrelationshipbetweenthetwo.Aprosecutionforlibel
basedthereoncannotbemadewithoutthesworncomplaintoftheoffendedparty.(Fernandezvs.
Lantin,74SCRA338)

17.Doesthedeathoftheoffendedpartyextinguishthecriminalliabilityoftheaccusedina

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 3/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

crimeoflibel?

Ifthedeathoftheoffendedpartyoccurredafterthefilingofthecomplaint,thecomplaintpreviously
filedbytheoffendedpartywillnotbeinvalidatedevenifitisacrimewhichcannotbeprosecutedde
oficio.(Peoplevs.Bundalian,117SCRA718).Iftheoffendedpartyshalldiebeforehewasabletofile
acomplaintforlibel,hisheirsorlegalrepresentativeshavearighttofilethecomplaint,unlessthe
libelchargedintheinformationisonewhichcannotbebroughtexceptattheinstanceofandupon
complaintfiledbytheoffendedpartytherebeinganimputationofanoffensewhichcannotbe
prosecuteddeoficio.

18.Whataretheessentialelementsoflibel?

Therearefour(4)essentialelementsoflibel,namely:

a.Theimputationmustbedefamatory

b.Theimputationmustbemadepublicly

c.Theimputationmustbemaliciousand

d.Thepersondefamedmustbeidentifiable.

(Peoplevs.Monton,6SCRA801)

ELEMENTSOFLIBEL
FIRSTELEMENT:THEREMUSTBEADEFAMATORYIMPUTATION.

19.Whatcanthedefamatoryimputationcover?

Theimputationcancoveranyofthefollowing

a.Crimeallegedlycommittedbytheoffendedparty

b.Viceordefect,realorimaginary,oftheoffendedpartyor

c.Anyact,omission,condition,statusof,orcircumstancerelatingto,theoffendedpartywhichtendto
causethedishonor,discredit,orcontemptofanaturalorjuridicalperson,ortoblackenthememory
ofonewhoisdead.

20.Examplesofimputationsofacrimeallegedlycommittedbytheoffendedparty.

(a)Anarticlewhichportraystheoffendedpartyasaswindlerwho,priortohiselectionasmunicipal
president,collectedmoneyfromseveralinhabitantsofthetownthroughfraudanddeceitand
constructedahouseworthP40,000withthemoneysocollected,imputesthecommissionofthe
crimeofestafatotheoffendedparty(Peoplevs.Bailo,etal.,C.A.,37O.G.2373).

(b)Brandingsomebodyashavingmurderedhisbrotherinlaw,enrichinghimselfattheexpenseof

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 4/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

otherswhotrustedhim,callingoneabigamistandbecomingrichovernightthroughquestionable
transactionsandinfluencepeddling,winninginanelectionthroughmassfraudandrampantvote
buyingbecauseoftheinfluenceofbrotherinlawareobviouslylibelousandslanderousfortheyare
maliciousimputationsofcriminalactstendingtocausedishonor,discreditandcontemptofthe
complainant,punishableundertheprovisionsofArticle353oftheRevisedPenalCode(Peoplevs.
Dianalan,13C.A.Rep.34).

21.Isanimputationofcriminalintentionlibelous?

No,theimputationofcriminalintentionisnotlibelous.Suchimputationisnotlibelousbecauseintent
tocommitacrimeisnotaviolationofthelaw.Thisismoreso,whenitisamereassertionor
expressionofopinionastowhatwillbethefutureconductofanother.(Peoplevs.Baja,C.A.,40
O.G.,Supp.5,206).

22.Examplesofimputationsofviceordefect,realorimaginary,oftheoffendedparty.

(a)Whenaperson,inanarticle,imputesuponthepersonsmentionedtherein,lasciviousand
immoralhabits,thatarticleisofalibelousnatureasittendstodiscreditthepersonslibeledinthe
mindsofthosereadingthesaidarticle(Peoplevs.Suarez,G.R.No.35396,April11,1932).

(b)Callingcomplainantwhowasabarangaycaptainignoramus,traitor,tyrantandJudasisclearlyan
imputationofdefectsincomplainantscharactersufficienttocausehimembarrassmentandsocial
humiliation.(Occenavs.Icamina,181SCRA328)

(c)Onewhograbsanothershusbanddoesnotnecessarilymeananadulteress.Atmost,it
mayimplythatthepersontowhomitisaddressedisaflirt,atemptress,oronewhoindulgesin
enticingotherhusbandshence,itismoreofanimputationofavice,condition,oractnot
constitutingacrime.(Gonzalesvs.Arcilla,203SCRA609)

23.Exampleofanimputationofanactofomissionoftheoffendedparty.

AnarticlesignedbytheaccusedandpublishedinthePhilippinesHeraldsaysthattheoffendedparty
usedtoborrowmoneywithoutintentiontopaythathehadorderedthefixingofhisteethwithout
payingthefeesfortheservicesrenderedbythedentistetc.,containsanimputationofanactand
omissionwhichisdefamatory(Peoplevs.Tolentino,C.A.,37O.G.1763).

24.Examplesofanimputationofcondition,statusof,orcircumstancerelatingtothe
offendedparty.

(a)Callingapersonabastardorleperwithinthehearingofotherpersonsisdefamatory,because
thereisanimputationofaconditionorstatuswhichtendstocausedishonororcontemptofthe
offendedparty.(U.S.vs.Ortiz,etal.,8Phil.752)

(b)Writingandpublishinganarticlecontainingthewordscoward,vilesoul,dirtysucker,savage,
hogwhoalwayslookstowardthegroundwhichrefertotheoffendedparty,therebyexposingthe

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 5/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

lattertopubliccontemptandridicule(U.S.vs.Ortiz,etal.,8Phil,752).

(c)Thewordfoolorcrazybecomesdefamatoryifusedtoconnotementalaberration.
(Peoplevs.Lladoc,CAG.R.No.01432CR,April16,1962)

(d)Thewordmangkukulamisundoubtedlyanepithetofopprobrium.To
saythatcomplainantisawitchandsorceressistoimputetoheravice,conditionorstatusthatis
dishonorableandcontemptible.(Peoplevs.CarmenSario,G.R.No.L20754andG.R.No.L20753,
June30,1966)

25.Indeterminingwhethercertainwordsaredefamatory,istheintentofthewritermaterial?

Inmattersoflibel,thequestionisnotwhatthewriterofanallegedlibelmeans,butwhatisthe
meaningofthewordshehasused.Themeaningofthewriterisquiteimmaterial.Thequestionisnot
whatthewritermeant,butwhathiswordsconveyedtothosewhoheardorreadthem.Itisnotthe
intentionofthespeakerorwriter,ortheunderstandingoftheplaintifforofanyhearerorreaderby
whichtheactionablequalityofthewordsistobedetermined,butthemeaningthatthewordsinfact
conveyedonthemindsofpersonsofreasonableunderstanding,discretionandcandor,takinginto
considerationthesurroundingcircumstanceswhichwereknowntothehearerorreader.(Peoplevs.
Encarnacion,C.A.48O.G.1817).

26.Isitnecessarythatthedefamatoryimputationbeincertainandexpressterms?

No.Wordscalculatedtoinducesuspicionaresometimesmoreeffectivetodestroyreputationthan
falsechargesdirectlymade.Ironicalandmetaphoricallanguageisafavoredvehicleforslander.A
chargeissufficientifthewordsarecalculatedtoinducethehearerstosupposeandunderstandthat
thepersonagainstwhomtheywereutteredwasguiltyofcertainoffenses,oraresufficientto
impeachhishonesty,virtueorreputation,ortoholdhimuptopublicridicule.(U.S.vs.OConnell,37
Phil.767)

Wherethecommentsareinsincereandintendedtoridiculeratherthanpraisetheplaintiff,the
publicationislibelous.Praiseundeservedisslanderindisguise.(Jimenezvs.Reyes,27Phil.52)

Publication,evenifintendedforhumor,maybelibelouswhenthelanguageusedpassedfromthe
boundsofplayfuljestandintensivecriticismintotheregionofscurrilouscalumniationand
intemperatepersonalities(Oliver,etal.vs.LaVanguardia,Inc.48Phil.429).

27.Howdoyouconstrueanallegedlylibelousarticle?

Theallegedlibelousarticlemustbeconstruedasawhole.(Jimenezvs.Reyes,27Phil.52U.S.vs.
Sotto,38Phil.666).Thetestoflibelousmeaningsisnottheanalysisofasentenceintocomponent
phraseswiththemeticulouscareofthegrammarianorstylist,buttheimportconveyedoftheentirety
ofthelanguagetotheordinaryreader.(U.S.vs.OConnell,37Phil.767).Inotherwords,thearticle
mustbeconstruedinitsentiretyincludingtheheadline,astheymayenlarge,explain,orrestrictorbe
enlarged,explainedorstrengthenedorrestrictedbythecontext.Whetherornotitislibelous

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 6/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

dependsuponthescope,spiritandmotiveofthepublicationtakeninitsentirety.(Imperial,etal.vs.
TheManilaPublishingCo.,Inc.,etal.,13C.A.Rep.990).

Forthepurposeofdeterminingthemeaningofanypublicationallegedtobelibelousthat
constructionmustbeadoptedwhichwillgivetothemattersuchameaningasisnaturalandobvious
intheplainandordinarysenseinwhichthepublicwouldnaturallyunderstandwhatwasuttered.The
publishedmatterallegedtobelibelousmustbeconstruedasawhole.Inapplyingtheserulestothe
languageofanallegedlibel,thecourtwilldisregardanysubtitleoringeniousexplanationofferedby
thepublisheronbeingcalledtoaccount.Thewholequestionbeingtheeffectthepublicationhad
uponthemindsofthereaders,andtheynothavingbeenassistedbytheofferedexplanationin
readingthearticle,itcomestoolatetohavetheeffectofremovingthesting,ifanytherebe,fromthe
wordusedinthepublication.(U.S.vs.Sotto,38Phil.666).

Whenneitherpartyendeavorstoshowahiddenmeaningnorlatentambiguitiesinthepublication
complainedof,itisforthecourttodeterminewhetheritscontentsarelibelous,aftergivingtothe
articleasawholesuchmeaningasisnaturalandobviousintheplainandordinarysenseinwhich
thepublicationwouldnaturallybeunderstood.Opinionsofwitnessesuponthispointareimmaterial
(Jimenezvs.Reyes,21Phil.52).

Thedefamatorywordsaretobeconstruedintheirentirety,andshouldbetakenintheirplain,natural
andordinarymeaningastheywouldnaturallybeunderstoodbypersonsreadingorhearingthem,
unlessitappearsthattheywereusedandunderstoodinanothersense.Inshort,thelanguageused
mustbeunderstoodinitsplainandpopularsensetoreadthesentencesaswouldthemanon
thestreet.Theintentorpurposethenofthespeakerorwriterisnotrelevant.(Gonzalesvs.Arcilla,
203SCRA609).

28.Whatistheinnocentconstructionrule?

Wordscapableofbeingreadinnocentlymustbereadinnocentlyanddeclarednotlibelousunderthe
ruleofinnocentconstruction.

Wheretheallegedlibelousmatterissusceptibleoftwoormoreinterpretations,onelibelousandthe
othernotlibelous,courtsofjusticearenotjustifiedinholdingthattherealpurposeofthewriterwas
tohavethepublicunderstandwhathewroteinlightoftheworstpossiblemeaning.Theremustbe
clearevidencethatsuchwasthecase.(Peoplevs.Madamba,47O.G.3553).

SECONDELEMENT:THEREMUSTBEPUBLICATIONOFTHEDEFAMATORYIMPUTATION.

29.Whatconstitutespublication?

Publicationisthecommunicationofthedefamatorymattertosomethirdpersonorpersons(People
vs.Atencio,CAG.R.Nos.11351Rto11353R,Dec.14,1954).Libelispublishednotonlywhenitis
widelycirculated,butalsowhenitismadeknownorbroughttotheattentionornoticeofanother
personotherthanitsauthorandtheoffendedparty.(U.S.vs.Ubinana,1Phil.471).

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 7/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

Thecommunicationoflibelousmattertothepersondefamedalonedoesnotamounttopublication,
forthatcannotinjurehisreputation.Amansreputationistheestimateinwhichothersholdhim,not
thegoodopinionwhichhehasofhimself.(Peoplevs.Atencio,CAG.R.Nos.11351Rto11353R,
Dec.14,1954).

30.Examplesofpublication.

(a)Writingalettertoanotherpersonotherthanthepersondefamedissufficienttoconstitute
publication,forthepersontowhomtheletterisaddressedisathirdpersoninrelationtoitswriterand
thepersondefamedtherein(Orfanelvs.People,30SCRA819)

(b)Sendingtothewifealetterdefamatoryofherhusbandissufficientpublication(U.S.vs.Ubiana,
1Phil.471).Thepersondefamedisthehusbandandthewifeisthethirdpersontowhomthe
publicationismade.

(c)Oneofthetypesettersofthepapertestifiedthatthedefendanthandedtohim,tobesetintype,
thearticleinquestion,andthatthemanuscriptthusdeliveredwasinthehandwritingofthe
defendant.Itwasheldthatdeliveringthearticletothetypesetterissufficientpublication.(U.S.vs.
Crame,10Phil.135)

(d)Thereispublicationofdefamatoryletternotshowntobesealedwhensenttotheaddressee.If
sendingaletternotshowntobesealedispublication,sendingofanunsealedlettershoulda
fortioribeheldtobepublication(U.S.vs.Grino,36Phil.738Peoplevs.Silvela,103Phil.773).

However,sendingaletterinasealedenvelopethroughmessenger,isnotpublication(Lopezvs.
Delgado,8Phil.26).

31.Whatisthemultiplepublicationrule?

Eachandeverypublicationofthesamelibelconstitutesadistinctoffense.Statedmoresuccinctlyfor
purposesofascertainingjurisdictionunderArticle360oftheRPC,asamended,everytimethesame
writtenmatteriscommunicatedsuchcommunicationisconsideredadistinctandseparatepublication
ofthelibel.

Itisasettledjurisprudencethateachseparatepublicationofalibelconstitutesadistinctcrimeof
libel,althoughtwolibelouspublicationsaroseoutofthesamecontroversyandevenifonewaspartial
reiterationofthefirst.(Peoplevs.Sotto,36Phil.389Montinolavs.Montalvo,34Phil.662Soriano
vs.IAC,167SCRA222)

THIRDELEMENT:THEREMUSTBEMALICE.

32.Whatismalice?

Maliceisatermusedtoindicatethefactthattheoffenderispromptedbypersonalillwillorspiteand
speaksnotinresponsetoduty,butmerelytoinjurethereputationofthepersondefamed(U.S.vs.
Castaete,38Phil.253).

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 8/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

33.Whatarethetypesofmalice?

Therearetwotypesofmalice,i.e.maliceinlawandmaliceinfact.

34.Whatismaliceinlaw?

Maliceinlawisapresumptionoflaw.Itdispenseswiththeproofofmalicewhenwordswhichraise
thepresumptionareshowntohavebeenuttered.Itisalsoknownasconstructivemalice,legal
malice,orimpliedmalice.

35.Whatismaliceinfact?

Maliceinfactisapositivedesireandintentiontoannoyorinjure.Itmaydenotethatthedefendant
wasactuatedbyillwillorpersonalspite.Itisalsocalledexpressmalice,actualmalice,realmalice,
truemalice,orparticularmalice.

36.Howismaliceproved?

Maliceisestablishedeitherbypresumptionorbyproof.

37.Howismaliceinlawproved?

Maliceinlawispresumedfromadefamatoryimputation.Proofofmaliceisnotrequired,becauseitis
presumedtoexistfromthedefamatoryimputation(1stparagraph,Art.354,RPC).Thus,whenthe
imputationisdefamatory,theprosecutionortheplaintiffneednotprovemaliceonthepartofthe
defendant.Thelawpresumesthatthedefendantsimputationismalicious.

38.Howismaliceinfactproved?

Maliceinfactmaybeshownbyproofofillwill,hatred,orpurposetoinjure.Thus,arepublicationof
defamatorymattersubsequenttothecommencementofanactionbasedthereonisadmissibleto
establishmaliceinfact(U.S.vs.Montalvo,29Phil.595).

39.Exampleofhowmaliceinfactisproved.

Thereisexpressmaliceormaliceinfact,becauseitclearlyappearsthattheaccusedTopacio
wasactuatedbyadesiretoimpeachthereputation,integrityandhonestyofSecretaryPerezasa
governmentofficialandtoforcehimtoresignbecauseoftheallegedmisfeasanceandmalfeasance
inoffice(Peoplevs.Topacio,etal.,59Phil.356).

40.Whenismaliceinlawnotpresumed?

Thepresumptionofmalicedoesnotariseinthetwocasesofprivilegedcommunicationsmentioned
inparagraphs1and2ofArt.354oftheRevisedPenalCode,i.e.:

a.Aprivatecommunicationmadebyanypersontoanotherintheperformanceofanylegal,moralor
socialduty

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 9/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

b.Afairandtruereport,madeingoodfaith,withoutanycommentsorremarks,ofanyjudicial,
legislative,orotherofficialproceedingswhicharenotofconfidentialnature,orofanystatement,
report,orspeechdeliveredinsaidproceedings,orofanyotheractperformedbypublicofficersinthe
exerciseoftheirfunctions.

Wherethecommunicationisprivileged,maliceisnotpresumedfromthedefamatorywords.The
plaintiffortheprosecutionmustprovemaliceinfact,wheneverthedefamatoryimputationappearsin
aprivilegedcommunication.(U.S.vs.Bustos,37Phil.731LuChuSing,etal.,vs.LuTiongGui,76
Phil.669).

41.Doesproofofgoodintentionandjustifiablemotivenegatetheexistenceofmalice?

Maliceinlawisnotnecessarilyinconsistentwithanhonestorevenlaudablepurpose.Forthat
reason,evenifthepublicationisinjurious,thepresumptionofmalicedisappearsuponproofofgood
intentionandjustifiablemotive.

Butwheremaliceinfactispresent,justifiablemotivescannotexist,andtheimputationsbecome
actionable(Peoplevs.Peregrino,11C.A.Rep.803,citingU.S.vs.Bustos,13Phil.600LiuChusing,
etal.vs.LuTiongCiu,76Phil.609)

FOURTHELEMENT:THEPERSONDEFAMEDMUSTBEIDENTIFIABLE.

42.Shouldthepersondefamedbeidentifiable?

Yes.Inordertomaintainalibelsuititisessentialthatthevictimbeidentifiable,althoughitisnot
necessarythathebenamed.

43.Howistheidentityofthepersondefameddetermined?

Itisenoughifbyintrinsicreferencetheallusionisapparentorifthepublicationcontainsmattersof
descriptionorreferencetofactsandcircumstancesfromwhichothersreadingthearticlemayknow
thattheplaintiffwasintended,orifheispointedoutbyextraneouscircumstancesothatpersons
knowinghimcouldanddidunderstandthathewasthepersonreferredto(Corpusvs.Cuaderno,Sr.,
16SCRA807).

Theobnoxiouswritingneednotmentionthelibeledpartybyname.Itissufficientifitisshownthatthe
offendedpartyisthepersonmeantoralludedto(Causinvs.Jakosalem,5Phil.155),theprosecution
beingpermittedtoprovebyevidencethatthevagueimputationreferstothecomplainant(Peoplevs.
Silvela,103Phil.773).

44.Doesthefactthattheoffendedpartyrecognizedhimselfasthepersondefamedsufficient
forpurposesofcomplyingwiththefourthelementoflibel,i.e.thatthepersondefamedmust
beidentifiable?

Wherenooneisnamedoraccuratelydescribedinthearticlecomplainedof,itisnotsufficientthat
theoffendedpartyrecognizedhimselfasthepersonattackedordefameditmustbeshownthatat

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 10/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

leastathirdpersoncouldidentifyhimastheobjectofthelibelouspublication(Kunklevs.Cablenews
American,42Phil.757).

Wherethearticleisimpersonalonitsfaceandinterpretationofitslanguagedoesnotsingleout
individuals,thefourthessentialrequisiteoftheoffenseoflibeldoesnotexist(Peoplevs.Andrada,
C.A.,37O.G.92UyTioco,etal.vs.YangShuWen,etal.,32Phil.624).

45.Aredefamatoryimputationsdirectedatagroupofpersonsactionable?

Defamatoryremarksdirectedatagroupofpersonsisnotactionableunlessthestatementsareall
embracingorsufficientlyspecificforthevictimtobeidentifiable.

Wherethedefamationisallegedtohavebeendirectedatagrouporclass,itisessentialthatthe
statementmustbesosweepingorallembracingastoapplytoeveryindividualinthatgrouporclass,
orsufficientlyspecificsothateachindividualinthatclassorgroupcanprovethatthedefamatory
statementspecificallypointedtohim,sothathecanbringtheactionseparately,ifneedbe.
(Newsweek,Inc.vs.IntermediateAppellateCourt,142SCRA171).

46.Canlibelpublishedindifferentpartsbetakentogethertoestablishtheidentityofthe
persondefamed?

Yes.InU.S.vs.Sotto,36Phil.389,thereweretwopublications.Thefirstpublicationmentionedno
names.Itemployed,however,certainwordsandphraseswhicharedefamatory.Thesecond
publicationconsistedofacartooninwhichthepersonsreferredtointhefirstpublicationare
caricaturedbynameandtoeachoneofthemisattachedoneofthedefamatorywordsorphrases.
Thetwopublicationswereconsideredtogethertoestablishtheidentityoftheoffendedparty.

DEFENSESINLIBEL

47.Whatarethepossibledefensesinanactionforlibel?

Thepossibledefensesinanactionforlibelincludethefollowing:

(a)Privilegedcommunications

(b)Faircommentonmattersofpublicinterest

(c)Faircommentonqualificationsofcandidatesforpublicoffice

(d)Apologyorretraction

(e)Rectification

(f)Proofoftruthand

(g)Selfdefense.

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 11/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

A.PRIVILEGEDCOMMUNICATIONS

48.Whatareprivilegedcommunications?

Privilegedcommunicationsarethosewhich,wereitnotfortheoccasiononwhichorthe
circumstancesunderwhichtheyaremade,wouldbederogatoryandactionable.

49.Whataretheclassesofprivilegedcommunications?

Aprivilegedcommunicationmayeitherbeabsolutelyprivilegedorconditionallyorqualifiedly
privileged.

50.Whenisacommunicationconsideredabsolutelyprivileged?

Acommunicationissaidtobeabsolutelyprivilegedwhenitisnotactionable,evenifitsauthorhas
actedinbadfaith.ThisclassincludesstatementsmadebymembersofCongressinthedischargeof
theirfunctionsassuch,officialcommunicationsmadebypublicofficersintheperformanceoftheir
duties,andallegationsorstatementsmadebythepartiesortheircounselintheirpleadingsor
motionsorduringthehearingofjudicialproceedings,aswellastheanswersgivenbywitnessesin
replytoquestionspropoundedtothem,inthecourseofsaidproceedings,providedthatsaid
allegationsorstatementsarerelevanttotheissues,andtheanswersareresponsiveorpertinentto
thequestionspropoundedtosaidwitnesses.(Orfanelvs.People,L26877,Dec.26,1969,30SCRA
819).

51.Whenisacommunicationconsideredconditionallyorqualifiedlyprivileged?

Conditionallyorqualifiedlyprivilegedcommunicationsarethosewhich,althoughcontaining
defamatoryimputations,wouldnotbeactionableunlessmadewithmaliceinfactorbadfaith.Ithas,
moreover,beenheldthatthereismalicewhenthedefamerhasbeenpromptedbyillwillorspiteand
speaksnotinresponsetoduty,butmerelytoinjurethereputationofthepersondefamed.(Orfanel
vs.People,L26877,Dec.26,1969,30SCRA819).

52.Distinguishabsoluteprivilegedcommunicationsandqualifiedprivileged
communications.

Inabsoluteprivilegedcommunications,theoccasionisanabsolutebartotheaction,whereas,inthe
caseofconditionalorqualifiedprivilegedcommunications,thelawraisesonlyaprimafacie
presumptioninfavoroftheoccasion.Intheformer,thefreedomfromliabilityisabsolute,regardless
oftheexistenceofexpressmalice,ascontrastedwiththefreedominthelatterclasswhereitis
conditionedonthewantorabsenceofexpressmalice.

Inqualifiedprivilegedcommunications,theremustbebothanoccasionofprivilegeandauseofthat
occasioningoodfaith,whereas,inabsoluteprivilegedcommunication,onlyanoccasionofprivilege
isnecessary.(Sisonvs.David,No.L1128,January28,1961)

53.Whatdoqualifiedlyprivilegedcommunicationsinclude?

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 12/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

Thequalifiedlyprivilegedcommunicationsincludethefollowing:

a.Aprivatecommunicationmadebyanypersontoanotherintheperformanceofanylegal,moralor
socialduty(No.1,Art.354,RPC)

b.Afairandtruereport,madeingoodfaith,withoutanycommentsorremarks,ofanyjudicial,
legislative,orotherofficialproceedingswhicharenotofconfidentialnature,orofanystatement,
report,orspeechdeliveredinsaidproceedings,orofanyotheractperformedbypublicofficersinthe
exerciseoftheirfunctions(No.2,Art.354,RPC).

54.Examplesofaprivatecommunicationmadebyanypersontoanotherintheperformance
ofanylegal,moralorsocialduty.

(a)Acommunicationsentbyanofficialtohisimmediatesuperiorintheperformanceofalegalduty,
asanexplanationofamattercontainedinanindorsementsenttohimbyhissuperiorofficer,
althoughitemployedalanguagesomewhatharshanduncalledfor,isexcusableintheinterestof
publicpolicy,andisconsideredaprivilegedcommunication,forwhichthewriterisnotliablefor
damages.(Deanovs.Godinez,12SCRA483).

(b)Complaintmadeingoodfaithagainstapriesttohisecclesiasticalsuperior
allegedlyfordrunkenness,takingindecentlibertiesofwomen,illicitrelationswithawoman,and
generalimmoralandindecentbehavior,isprivileged,eveniftheprooffailstoestablishthetruthof
thecharges.Themembersofareligiousorganizationhaveamoraldutytobringtotheattentionof
thechurchauthoritiesthemisbehavioroftheirspiritualleadersoroffellowmembers.(U.S.vs.
Canete,etal.,38Phil.253)

55.Exampleofafairandtruereport,madeingoodfaith,withoutanycommentsorremarks,
ofanyjudicial,legislative,orotherofficialproceedingswhicharenotofconfidentialnature,
orofanystatement,report,orspeechdeliveredinsaidproceedings,orofanyotheract
performedbypublicofficersintheexerciseoftheirfunctions.

Anewspapersfaithfulandaccuratesummaryofwhatwastestifiedtobyawitnessinapending
rapecaseisnotlibelous.

Nolibelexistswheretheheadingortitleofanewsitemdeemednotlibelous,merelyportrayedwith
accuracywhatwasinthenewsitem.Norisadifferentconclusioncalledforjustbecausethe
headingofthenewsitemarisingfromthetestimonyofJaimeJosewaswordedthus:LINK
CRISOLOGOSONTOPASAYRAPECASE.Howelsecouldithavebeenexpressed?Thatwasto
portraywithaccuracywhatwascontainedinthenewsitem.Whatwastestifiedtowastothateffect.It
succinctlysetforththefacts.Therewasnoattempttosensationalize.Thetoneisbothneutraland
objective.(Elizaldevs.Gutierrez,76SCRA448).

56.Whatpublicrecordsmaybepublished?

Theprivilegehasbeenstrictlylimitedtocasesinwhichtherightofaccessissecuredbylaw,andin

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 13/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

whichthepurposeandobjectofthelawistogivepublicitytothecontentsoftherecordordocument
intheinterest,orfortheprotection,ofthepublicgenerally(U.S.vs.Santos,33Phil.533).

57.Isthepublicationofarecordordocumentofaconfidentialnatureprivileged?

No.Ifthecontentsoftherecordordocument,involvedinanyjudicial,legislativeorotherofficial
proceedings,areofconfidentialnature,theyshouldnotbepublished.Hence,thepublicationof
confidentialrecordcontaininglibelousmatterisnotprivileged.

58.Doesthefactthatacommunicationisprivilegedmakeitnotactionable?

No.Thefactthatacommunicationisprivilegeddoesnotmeanthatitisnotactionabletheprivileged
charactersimplydoesawaywiththepresumptionofmalice,whichtheplaintiffhastoproveinsucha
case.(LuChuSing,etal.,vs.LuTiongGui,76Phil.669).

Thecharacteroftheprivilegeisamatterofdefensewhichmaybelostbypositiveproofofexpress
malice.Inotherwords,theonusofprovingactualmaliceisplacedontheplaintiffwhomustthen
convincethecourtthattheoffenderwaspromptedbymaliceorillwill.Oncethisisaccomplished,the
defenseofprivilegeisunavailing.(Santosvs.CA,203SCRA110).

59.Howcantheprosecutionorplaintiffprovemaliceinfact,i.e.actualmalice?

Theexistenceofmaliceinfactmaybeshownbyextrinsicevidencethatthedefendantboreagrudge
againsttheoffendedparty,orthattherewasrivalryorillfeelingbetweenthemwhichexistedatthe
dateofthepublicationofthedefamatoryimputation,orthatthedefendanthadanintentiontoinjure
thereputationoftheoffendedpartyasshownbythewordsusedandthecircumstancesattending
thepublicationofthedefamatoryimputation.

60.Examplesoftheexistenceofmaliceinfact.

(a)Theaccusedadmittedthathewasmotivatedbyhateandrevengebecausetheoffendedparty
instigatedthefilingofcriminalcasesagainsthim,withoutwhichhewouldnothavesentthe
communicationatall.Maliceinfactbeingpresentinthiscase,justifiablemotivescannotexistandthe
communicationbecomesactionable.(Peoplevs.Hogan,C.A.,55O.G.1597).

(b)Hadthedefendantbeenpromptedbyasenseofduty,andnotbecauseof
malice,thechargeatleastwithrespecttotheallegedthreatmadeagainstanAmerican,shouldhave
beenfiledwiththeSenateoranyofitsCommittees.Thedefendantdidnotdosobutinsteadmade
theaccusationspubliclybycausingthemtobegivenwidestpublicationbyallthemetropolitan
newspapers,obviouslyinretaliationtothechargefiledagainsthimbytheplaintiffwiththeBlue
RibbonCommitteeoftheSenate.(Antoniovs.Valencia,57SCRA70).

(c)Eveniftheletterreportwasinthenatureofaqualifiedprivileged
communication,suchprivilegeislostbyproofofactualmaliceasinthecaseatbar.Moreover,said
letterreportlostitscharacterasaqualifiedprivilegedcommunicationthemomentpetitionerfurnished

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 14/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

copiesthereoftoseveralprovincialandnationalgovernmentagencieswhichhadnointerest,rightor
dutyintheprosecutionofsaidchargesandthegeneralruleisthatanywrittenorprintedstatement
falselycharginganotherwiththecommissionofacrimeislibelousperse.(Bravovs.Courtof
Appeals,208SCRA531).

(d)Anothercircumstancewhichmilitatesagainstthepetitionerspretensionsofgoodfaithand
performanceofamoralandsocialdutywashisirresponsibleactofletterwritingtoexposehis
allegeddiscoveryofwhatheperceivedtobeananomaly.Whenhesawtheunsignedminutesofthe
associationsBoardofDirectors,heimmediatelysentouttheassailedletterseventuallyculminating
inthepublicationofthesubjectnewslettersanstheverificationwhichordinaryprudencedemands.
(Lacsavs.IAC,161SCRA427).

61.Isactualmalicenecessarilypresentifthestatementsarefoundtobefalse?

No.Evenwhenthestatementsarefoundtobefalseifthereisprobablecauseforbeliefintheir
truthfulnessandthechargeismadeingoodfaith,themantleofprivilegemaystillcoverthemistake
oftheindividual.Butthestatementmustbemadeunderanhonestsenseofdutyaselfseeking
motiveisdestructive.Thedutyunderwhichapartyisprivilegedissufficientifitissocialormoralinits
natureandthispersoningoodfaithbelievesheisactinginpursuancethereofalthoughinfactheis
mistaken.(U.S.vs.Bustos,etal.,37Phil.731)

Butwhenthedefendantadmittedthathehadpersonallymadenoinvestigationwithreferencetothe
truthofmanyofthestatementsmadeinthecommunicationtotheSecretaryofJustice,especially
withreferencetothestatementsbasedontherumorsthatajudgeandafiscalreceivedabribefor
dismissingamurdercase,hehadnoreasonablegroundforbelievingthechargemadebyhimtobe
true.(U.S.vs.Bustos,13Phil.690).

B.FAIRCOMMENTONMATTERSOFPUBLICINTEREST

62.Whatistherationaleinmakingfaircommentonmattersofpublicinterestprivileged?

Amatterofpublicinterestisacommonproperty,andhenceanybodymayexpressanopiniononit.
Thus,itisadefensetoanactionforlibelorslanderthatthewordscomplainedofarefaircomment
onamatterofpublicinterest.

Theconductoractsofpublicofficerswhicharerelatedtothedischargeoftheirofficialdutiesare
mattersofpublicinterest.Defamatoryremarksandcommentsontheconductoractsofpublic
officerswhicharerelatedtothedischargeoftheirofficialdutieswillnotconstitutelibelifthe
defendantprovesthetruthoftheimputation.Publicactsofpublicmenmaylawfullybemadethe
subjectsofcommentandcriticism.Ifmadeingoodfaith,suchcriticismisprivileged.

Butanyattackupontheprivatecharacterofthepublicofficeronmatterswhicharenotrelatedtothe
dischargeoftheirofficialfunctionsmayconstitutelibel(Peoplevs.DelFierroandPadilla,C.A.G.R.
No.3599R,July27,1950).Therighttocriticizepublicofficersdoesnotauthorizedefamation.No
onehastherighttoinvadeanothersprivacy.

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 15/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

Indefamation,wheretheactsimputedconcerntheprivatelifeoftheindividual,criminalintentis
presumedtoarisefromthepublicationofdefamatorymatters,becausenoonehasarighttoinvade
anothersprivacybutwheretheimputationisbaseduponamatterofpublicinterest,the
presumptionofcriminalintentdoesnotarisefromthemerepublicationofdefamatorymatter.A
matterofpublicinterestiscommonproperty,andhenceeverybodymayexpressanopiniononit.
Thepublicconductofeverypublicmanisamatterofpublicconcern.Libelousremarksorcomments
connectedforonething,withanyspeechoractsperformedbyofficersintheexerciseoftheir
functionsarenotactionable,unlessmaliceisproved.Ifitisshownthattheimputationiseitherafalse
allegationoffact,ortheexpressionofanopinionbaseduponmereconjecture,maliciousintentis
established.Inorderthatadiscreditableimputationtoapublicofficialmaybeactionable,itmustbe
eitherafalseallegationoffactoracommentbasedonafalsesupposition.Ifthecommentisan
expressionofanopinion,baseduponprovenfacts,thenitisnomatterthattheopinionhappensto
bemistakensolongasitmightbereasonablyinferredfromthefacts.Commentmaybefair,
althoughwrong.Sothatthediscreditableimputationmaynotbeactionable,thefactuponwhichthe
commentisreasonablybasedshouldbeactualfacts,andnotmeresuppositions.(Peoplevs.
Velasco,C.A.,40O.G.3694)

C.FAIRCOMMENTONQUALIFICATIONSOFCANDIDATESFORPUBLICOFFICE

63.Whatistherationaleinmakingfaircommentonqualificationsofcandidatesforpublic
officeprivileged?

Themental,moralandphysicalfitnessofcandidatesforpublicofficemaybetheobjectofcomment
andcriticism,theveryfactofcandidacyputtingthesemattersisissueandthepublichavingarightto
beinformedastothequalificationofthosewhoseekelection,andperhapsappointmenttopublic
office.Butifitappearsthatitwasactuatedbyactualorexpressmalice,andisdefamatoryinits
nature,thecommentorcriticismconstitutesacriminallibel.Thefreedomtosuchcriticismis
necessarilylimitedtofaircomment,thelatterbeingcommentwhichistrue,orwhichiffalse,
expressestherealopinionoftheauthorwhichisformedwithareasonabledegreeofcareandon
reasonableground.(U.S.vs.Sedano,14Phil.338)

D.APOLOGYORRETRACTION

64.Whatistheeffectofapologyorretractioninanactionforlibel?

Aretractionpublishedtocorrectthemistakedoesnotwipeouttheresponsibilityarisingfromthe
publicationofthelibelousphotographorarticle,althoughitmayandshouldmitigateit(Lopezvs.CA,
34SCRA116).

Inordertohavethedesiredeffect,theretractionshouldcontainanadmissionoftheincorrectnessor
thefalsityofthelibelouspublicationandevinceadesiretorepairthewrongoccasionedthereby.
(SoteloMattivs.BulletinPublishingCo.,37Phil.562)

Apublicationhoweverofaretractionorapologyonanagreementwiththeinjuredpartythatthe
aforesaidpublicationshallconstituteacompleteaccordandsatisfactionwillbartherightofplaintiffto
http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 16/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

anactionfordamages.

E.RECTIFICATION

65.Whatistheeffectofrectification?

Rectificationorclarificationdoesnotwipeouttheresponsibilitiesarisingfromthepublicationofthe
firstarticle,although,itmayandshouldmitigate.(Jimenezvs.Reyes,27Phil.52Policarpiovs.
ManilaTimesPublishingCo.,Inc.,55SCRA148).

F.PROOFOFTRUTH

66.Whenisproofoftruthadefenseinlibel?

Proofoftruthisadmissibleasadefenseinanyofthefollowing:

a.Whentheactoromissionimputedconstitutesacrimeregardlessofwhethertheoffendedpartyis
aprivateindividualorapublicofficer

b.Whentheoffendedpartyisagovernmentemployee,eveniftheactoromissiondoesnot
constituteacrime,provideditisrelatedtothedischargeofhisofficialduties.(Art.361,RPC)

Butwhentheimputationinvolvestheprivatelifeofagovernmentemployeewhichisnotrelatedtothe
dischargeofhisofficialfunctions,theoffendercannotprovethetruththereof.

67.Isproofoftruthsufficienttoacquitanaccusedinanactionforlibel?

No,proofofthetruthisnotenough.Itisalsorequiredthatthematterchargedaslibelouswas
publishedwithgoodmotivesandforjustifiableends.(Art.361,RPC)

G.SELFDEFENSE

68.Whatistheprerequisitebeforeselfdefensecanbeinvokedbyanaccusedinan
actionforlibel?

Tojustifyoneshittingbackwithanotherlibel,theremustbeashowingthathehasbeenlibeled.
(FieldmansInsuranceCo.,Inc.vs.KuNung,CAG.R.No.31559R,May26,1964).

69.Whatistherationaleinallowingapersonchargedwithlibeltoinvokeselfdefense?

Inanhonestendeavortovindicatehimselfandhisowninterestsapersonisoftenprivilegedtomake
statementswhichwouldotherwiseberegardedasdefamatory.Thus,ifonesgoodnameis
assailedinanewspaper,hemayreplydefendinghimself,andifhisreplyismadeingoodfaith,
withoutmaliceandisnotnecessarilydefamatoryofhisassailant,itisprivileged.(Peoplevs.Baja,CA,
40O.G.Supp.5,206).

70.Whatarethelimitationstoselfdefenseinlibel?

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 17/18
4/20/2016 BasicPhilippinelawonlibel

Whileapersonmaybelegallyjustifiedindefendinghimselforhisnearrelativesagainstlibelous
articles,nevertheless,hemaynotuseoffensivelanguageagainstthelibeler.Andthoughaperson
maydefendhimselffromchargesmadeagainsthim,hecannotmakeagainsthislibelera
counterattackwhichcontainslibelousstatementsnotpertinenttothematterschargedintheattack.If
hedoes,thenhehasexceededhisprivilegeandthelawshallaffordhimnoprotection.

http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basicphilippinelawonlibel/ 18/18