Proof of truth, A361 Revised Penal Code

1. Proof of truth as a defense

Article 361. Proof of the truth. – In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

a. Requirements

The following are the requirements for truth to be a defense:

1) The defamatory matter must be true;

2) It was published with good motives; and

3) It was for justifiable ends. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 361)

1) Defamatory matter must be true

Truth alone is not sufficient as a defense against libel.

That something is true does not necessarily mean that it has to be known by the public. There may be private matters that people are keeping to avoid social embarrassment, reputational loss, and for a host of other reasons. So long as these private matters do not involve crimes or offenses, then they should be kept private and not be divulged or showcased for public consumption.

Hence, there is no good motive for the publication of such private matters nor would there be any justifiable end. For instance, private individuals who have been forgiven by their spouses for having extramarital children, may want to keep such information a family secret. In many situations, there is no good motive nor justifiable end in publishing such private information to the public.

2) Published with good motives

Truth… is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends. (Alonzo v. CA, G.R. No. 110088, February 1, 1995, Per Davide, Jr., J.)

3) For justifiable ends

Tumang v. People, En Banc, G.R. No. L-48498, September 30, 1942, Per Yulo, C.J.:

• It appears that the libelous article contained imputations which insinuate the commission of criminal acts as well as of many other acts which do not constitute a crime. As to those imputations insinuating the commission of a crime, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioner was allowed to introduce evidence on the truth thereof but that said evidence was insufficient. Said the Court of appeals:

With regard to the first point, counsel for appellant contends that the lower court erred in not allowing the appellant to prove the truth of the imputations and aspersions appearing in the article in question. But the appellant should be reminded that under article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, proof of the truth may be offered and may lead to the acquittal of the defendant if the latter succeeds in his effort to prove the truth of the matter charged as libelous and that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends; but this rule is qualified by the other rule that no proof of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall be admitted “unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts relating to the discharge of their official duties.”

The case before us does not fit within the rules just cited and, therefore, the appellant cannot seek the protection of the provisions of said article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, in order to justify his criminal intent and secure his acquittal, it appearing that many of the imputations made against Felix Manalo in the libelous article in question do not constitute a crime; while in others where an insinuation was made of some criminal, act, the evidence submitted to prove the truth has completely failed to support the stand of the accused, and in general the imputations made against Manalo are not at all connected with the discharge of the duties of a Government official or employee, as it is well known that Felix Manalo is not a Government employee and proof of the truth of the imputations would not be admissible.

• In view of the above, we find no merit in petitioner’s contention that he had been unlawfully deprived of his right to prove the truth of the libelous imputations. The Court of Appeals has rightfully held that proof of the truth of those acts imputed the offended party which do not constitute a crime can be admitted, since he is not a government employee, and, consequently, none of those imputations can have any reference to facts related to the discharge by a government employee of his official duties. This is in consonance with the second paragraph of article 361 which limits the scope of the general rule set forth in the first paragraph of the same article.

2. When not constituting a crime

Article 361. Proof of the truth. – x x x

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

An imputation of an act or omission that does not constitute a crime may include morally/ethically reprehensible acts or omissions but there are no laws punishing them as crimes.

a. Rules

b. Acquittal, if truth is proven

In such cases [involving Government employees], if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. (REVISED PENAL CODE, last Paragraph, Article 361, Ibid.)

NB: If the offended party is a private individual, truth alone is insufficient. That the defamatory matter is true should be coupled with good motives and justifiable ends.

References

• Title XIII – Crimes Against Honor, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code

—

/Updated: November 6, 2023