Intriguing against honor refers to any scheme or plot designed to blemish the reputation of another by means w/c consist of some trickery. … 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.
“Article 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.”
The crime committed is oral defamation if the gossiping directly imputes to the offended party a crime or a defamatory condition. On the other hand, the crime committed is intriguing against honor if the gossiping imputes to the offended party a crime or a defamatory condition without knowing the source thereof.
Expression of Opinion – not intriguing against honor
Facts: Dr. Canoynoy was charged with intriguing against honor for having publicly uttered: “Your wife should not have been operated. If I were the doctor, all that I should have done was to do a curettage raspa on her.”
Held: The remarks made by Francisco were but a harmless expression of his opinion on what should have been done in treating her, if he were the doctor managing her. His statements were nothing more than a comment that complainant committed a mistake in the diagnosis and management of the patient. x x x.
We cannot see our way clear on how Francisco’s questioned statements could be branded as libelous. To stigmatize them as libelous would be a dangerous precedent whereby a mere criticism on the actuation of another will generate criminal liability for slander. His alleged defamatory remarks may be likened to a criticism of a lawyer’s or Judge’s erroneous handling of the case. (Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. L-45674 May 30, 1983)
Must be committed by means of some tricky and secret plot, and not gossiping which falls under defamation.
Where the source or author of derogatory information cannot be determined and defendant passes it to others, defendant’s act is one of intriguing against honor; if it came from a definite source, crime is slander.
Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping: the offender, without ascertaining the truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the same and passes it on to another, to the damage of the offended party.
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.
Incriminating innocent person is committed by performing an act (not constituting perjury) by which the offender directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime. (Art. 363) It does not apply to false accusations but to acts tending directly to cause false accusations, such as “planting” evidence and the like. (Lu Chu Sing vs. Lu Tiong Gui, G.R. No. L-122, May 11, 1946)
ELEMENTS OF INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON:
- That the offender performs an act.
- That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.
- That such act does not constitute perjury.
ART. 363. INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON. — Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto mayor.,
Slander or oral defamation is penalized under the Revised Penal Code. In order to successfully lodge a case for slander, the following elements must be proven:
1. There is an imputation of a crime, vice, defect, act, omission, condition, status or circumstance.
2. The imputation is made publicly.
3. The imputation must be made maliciously.
4. The imputation is directed against a natural or juridical person or one who is dead.
5. The imputation tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
If the imputation is verbally made, then it is considered as slander. However, if the imputation is made through writing, printing, lithography, radio and other similar means, it is punishable as libel.
It must be borne in mind that the intention of the speaker is immaterial in slander. What is relevant is how the same is construed by ordinary people. Moreover, proof of truth is not admissible if the imputation pertains to an act or omission not constituting a crime, except when it relates to acts of government employees with respect to their duties.
Slander is a serious matter since one can be imprisoned if convicted. Serious slander is punishable by imprisonment of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months while simple slander is punishable by arresto menor or 1 day to 1 month or a fine not exceeding P200.
Update: With the enactment of Republic Act No. 10951, which amended various provisions of the Revised Penal Code, the fines for both serious and simple slander have both been revised. Serious slander is now punishable by imprisonment of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months or a fine ranging from P20,000 to P100,000, while simple slander is punishable by arresto menor or 1 day to 1 month or a fine not exceeding P20,000. (Updated on June 11, 2019.)
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.
Examples of Slander
- Telling someone that a certain person has a sexually transmitted disease.
- Relating to someone that a husband is cheating on his wife.
- Saying a doctor has fake diplomas on his wall.
- An employer claiming an employee stole equipment.
- Stating that a severed finger was found in the soup at a restaurant.
Factors that determine gravity of the offense:
- expressions used
- personal relations of the accused and the offended party
- circumstances surrounding the case
Notes:
Words uttered in the heat of anger constitute light oral defamation (P v Doronilla)
If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many people and the accused at the same time leveled his finger at the complainant, oral defamation is committed.