Proof of Truth

Art. 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.

When proof of truth is admissible

Proof of truth is admissible in any of the following:

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, it is related to the discharge of his official duties.

May evidence proving truthfulness of the imputation be received?

No. Evidence proving the imputation is objectionable because such is inadmissible. Two exceptions:

1. Imputation of a crime against any person. But the mere fact that the truth is proved, the accused must further show that he acted out of good motives and justifiable end. Truth alone is not enough. In all other cases, truth is not a defense at all.

2. Imputation against a public officer and the same relates to his public function. The offender may adduce evidence of the truth of such imputation. 

Example of No. 2

•  “A” stated in the presence of some people that “B,” a government official was in the habit of drinking intoxicating liquor during office hours and that he was always in a boisterous condition. In case “B” should file a complaint against “A” for defamation, the latter can prove the truth of the charge.

•   Both public interest and the good of the service demand that a drunkard be barred from the service.

•   Defamatory remarks against government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if defendant proves the truth of the imputation.

•  But when the imputation involved the private life of a government employee which is not related to the discharge of his official duties, the offender can not prove the truth thereof.

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

•  The 3rd  paragraph of Article 361 must have reference to the 2 cases referred to in the 2nd paragraph where proof of the truth may be admitted, namely:

1. if the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime; and
2. if the imputation not constituting a crime is made against a Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their duties.

•  The question may arise whether or not it is necessary to show that the accused who proved the truth of the imputation published it with good motives and for justifiable ends in order that he may be acquitted.

•  It is believed that since the accused did the public service, proof of his good motives and justifiable ends is not necessary.  -- ????????

Proof of truth

•   The proof of truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay, rumors or suspicion.

•   It may rest upon positive, direct evidence upon which a definite finding may be made by the Court.

•   But probable cause for belief in the truth of the statement is sufficient.

When evidence of the truth of imputation not admissible

Illustration

•  “A” stated before several persons that “B”, a private individual, is a drunkard or is suffering from contagious disease. In case “A” is prosecuted for defamation, he will not be allowed to prove the truth that “B” was really a drunkard or suffering from some communicable disease. 

Three requisites of defense in defamation

 •  Proof of the truth is not enough, it is also required that the matter charged as libelous was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.

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

-  The proof of the truth in defamation is limited only 

1.  to act or omission constituting a crime  and 
2.  to act or omission of a public officer which, although not constituting a crime, is related to the discharge of duties.

2.  It was published with good motives

- Whether or not good motives exist is a question to be determined by the court by taking into consideration not only the intention of the author of the defamatory matter but all other circumstances of each particular case.

3.   And for justifiable means

“With good intention and justifiable motives”

-  “A”, a nurse, was treating a patient suffering from gonorrhea. She believed that the patient had been contaminated by her husband. When the husband came to the house, “A” said “This is the result of your foolishness, you contaminated your wife.” This remark was made upstairs within the hearing of several persons.

-  Held: The statement concerning the cause of the sickness of the patient was done in private and only as a precautionary measure to prevent further contamination. Even if it was overheard by other persons, it was not motivated by malice on the part of “A.” There was no showing that she was inspired by any feeling of spite or ill-will towards the complainant.

- An imputation that a person has contagious disease might, in ordinary circumstances, be defamatory, but loses such character when made with good intention and justifiable motive.

Good motives and justifiable ends constitute a defense insofar as they negative malice. There is no liable if there is no malice.

Retraction may mitigate the damages

• In order to have the desired effect, the retraction should contain an admission of the falsity of the libelous publication and evince a desire to repair the wrong occasioned thereby.

That the publication of the article was an honest mistake is not a complete defense but serves only to mitigate damages where the article is libelous per se.

Source: 

Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2004 ed.

Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 2001 ed.