Ian Alfredo Magno THE country’s tremendously colorful political happenings have caught fire, fanning the attention not only of the local media, not only of the international media even, but even more strikingly, it sparked the scrutiny of the neighborhood “tambay” – more than ever. They say, the top three topics Filipinos love to discuss are (in no particular order) religion, sports and politics.  Especially politics. Some become so spirited that they sides with certain politicians as if they were cousins-in-law. To certain extremes, out of differing views, some burn bridges with friends, and some just wish to smack their friends’ face with a bridge. In fact, we commonly hear news or stories about folks who got tangled in legal suits for wounded egos or broken faces, when they oftentimes end up darting slanderous invectives at each other. Article 358, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides the penalty for 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.” In the case of Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 160351 dated 10 April 2006, the Supreme Court stated: “Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. The term oral defamation or slander as now understood, has been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words, which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and (3) the circumstances surrounding the case.  Indeed, it is a doctrine of ancient respectability that defamatory words will fall under one or the other, depending not only upon their sense, grammatical significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but also upon the special circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship between the offended party and the offender, which might tend to prove the intention of the offender at the time.” Question:  Does every slanderous remark which were made in different occasions, necessarily constitute separate counts of defamation? Not necessarily. In one case, the Supreme Court considered as one count, three derogatory remarks made in separate instances, due to the fact that they emanated from a single set of antecedents.  Hence, the case of Cruz vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 dated 25 November 1982: “And so it was that by reason of this series of developments, bad blood existed between the two families. There was a pent-up feeling of being aggrieved, resentment, anger, and vexation on petitioner's part, culminating in her outbursts against complainants. Although uttered on three different occasions; they originated from the same antecedents, and were fomented by the same basic dispute.” Nonetheless, regardless of the circumstance, it pays to be aware that the limit of our freedom of expression ends where another’s right to be protected from slander begins.