I. Introduction

This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the concept of “intriguing against honor” under Philippine criminal law. The primary legal provision governing this offense is Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as amended). The memo will examine the elements of the crime, its jurisprudence, distinctions from related offenses, and its practical application. The concept is unique as it criminalizes a specific preparatory act aimed at tarnishing another person’s reputation, even if the defamatory publication itself does not ultimately occur.

II. Legal Provision and Elements of the Crime

The offense is defined under Article 364, which states: “Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a person.”
The elements of the crime of intriguing against honor are:

III. Definition and Nature of ‘Intrigue’

The term “intrigue” is not statutorily defined in the Revised Penal Code. Jurisprudence has clarified its meaning. It refers to a clandestine or deceitful scheme, plot, or machination. The intrigue must involve a series of acts or a course of conduct designed to achieve the illicit purpose. Mere isolated statements or casual conversations generally do not constitute intrigue. The Supreme Court, in People v. Abaya (CA, 50 O.G. 107), characterized it as a “secret machination” or a “plotting.” The essence lies in the covert and systematic nature of the actions aimed at damaging another’s reputation.

IV. Principal Purpose: Blemishing Honor or Reputation

The second element requires that the principal or main objective of the intrigue is to blemish the honor or reputation of the victim. Honor refers to the individual’s personal integrity and virtue, while reputation pertains to the esteem in which the person is held in the community. This purpose distinguishes it from intrigue aimed at other ends, such as financial gain or professional advancement, which may not be punishable under this article. The prosecution must prove this specific intent as the primary motive behind the accused’s actions.

V. Distinction from Libel and Oral Defamation

Intriguing against honor is distinct from libel (Article 353) and oral defamation (Article 358). The key differences are:

As held in People v. Doriquez (CA, 47 O.G. 637), this crime is committed even if the intrigue does not result in actual defamation, as it punishes the “attempt to cause dishonor” through clandestine means.

VI. Jurisprudential Application and Examples

Case law illustrates the application of Article 364. In People v. Abaya, the accused was found guilty for clandestinely preparing and circulating a petition containing false and malicious imputations against a school principal, with the purpose of having him removed from his position, thereby blemishing his reputation. The act of secretly gathering signatures for such a petition constituted the intrigue. Conversely, mere gossip or spreading rumors in an open manner, without a clandestine scheme, may not suffice. The intrigue often involves steps like secretly composing defamatory materials, conspiring with others to spread falsehoods, or planting misleading evidence with the goal of exposing it later to damage reputation.

VII. Comparative Analysis with Other Preparatory or Inchoate Crimes

The crime is an inchoate or preparatory offense similar to, yet distinct from, other preparatory crimes in the Revised Penal Code. The following table provides a comparative analysis:

VIII. Penalty and Prescription

The penalty for intriguing against honor is arresto mayor (one month and one day to six months) or a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. As a light felony (under Article 9, a crime punishable by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days), the rules on prescription for its institution are governed by Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime prescribes in two months from the date of its commission, or from the discovery thereof by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.

IX. Procedural Aspects and Evidence

The crime is a public crime and may be prosecuted de oficio (by the state) as it involves a disturbance of social order by attacking an individual’s honor. However, in practice, it often requires a private complaint if the defamatory aspect is personal. Proving the crime is challenging, as it relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the clandestine scheme and the specific intent (principal purpose). Evidence may include witness testimony about secret meetings, drafts of defamatory materials, electronic communications, and the accused’s conduct demonstrating a plot focused on destroying reputation.

X. Conclusion

Intriguing against honor under Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code is a distinct offense that criminalizes clandestine plotting primarily aimed at damaging another’s reputation. It fills a gap in the law by penalizing malicious preparatory acts that may not culminate in libel or oral defamation. Its elements require proof of a secret machination (intrigue) undertaken with the principal objective of blemishing honor. While classified as a light felony with a short prescriptive period, it serves the important social function of deterring underhanded schemes that poison reputations and community relations. Practitioners must carefully distinguish it from consummated defamation crimes and other inchoate offenses, mindful of the specific evidentiary burdens it entails.