STATEMENTS against public officers do not constitute oral defamation or slander when these concern their discharge of official duties, unless it is done maliciously, according to the Supreme Court.
In a decision promulgated on Dec. 6, 2023 but made public only recently, the SC Second Division through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen acquitted Argelyn Labargan of grave oral defamation filed by Aileen Macabangon, a barangay “kagawad” (councilor) of Muntay, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte.
Records of the case showed Macabangon mediated between Labargan and Edna Jumapit in a barangay conciliation to settle their dispute.
As Macabangon was passing by Labargan’s house on Feb. 21, 2013, she heard Labargan yell from their terrace that Macabangon was dull, uneducated, ignorant, and biased towards Jumapit. As the terrace was beside a highway, many people heard Labargan, the records showed.
This prompted the barangay official to sue Labargan before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kolambugan-Tangkal, Lanao del Norte for grave oral defamation and other light threats.
Labargan was found guilty and her conviction was affirmed by Branch 7 of the Lanao del Norte Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
The High Court, in acquitting Labargan, held that offensive remarks against public officers do not constitute defamation if they relate to their discharge of official duties, unless actual malice is proved.
“Petitioner’s defamatory utterances against complainant Macabangon were related to her official duties as a barangay kagawad, and the prosecution failed to show actual malice. Hence, this Court grants the petition, and acquits the petitioner of grave oral defamation,” the SC ruling said.
The SC explained that under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, there is oral defamation or slander when there is an allegation of a crime, fault, or flaw, made orally, publicly, maliciously, towards a person, alive or dead; and such allegation tends to cause dishonor on the person defamed.
As the law assumes that a defamatory allegation is malicious, or made with knowledge that it is false, the SC said, the person who made the defamatory remarks has the burden of proving there was no malice.
However, it ruled that when it comes to defamation against public officers in relation to their duties, the prosecution has the burden to prove there was actual malice in the defamatory remarks, adding that the constitutional right to free speech empowers citizens to hold public officers accountable because public office is a public trust.
In the case, it said Macabangon is a public officer and that Labargan’s statements against her were criticisms of her competence as a barangay kagawad, specifically her supposed bias against the latter in the barangay conciliation proceedings.
As the statements related to Macabangon’s duties, the prosecution must prove actual malice on the part of Labargan, which it failed to do.
“While petitioner’s (Labargan) declarations may be offensive, they are not actionable by themselves. Being sensitive has no place in this line of service, more so when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public,” the SC said.
“Due to the prosecution’s failure to prove malice in uttering the defamatory statements, this Court finds that the petitioner is not guilty of grave oral defamation,’ it added.
Concurring with the decision are Associate Justices Amy Lazaro Javier, Jhosep Lopez, Mario Lopez and Antonio Kho Jr.
