Short answer. Truth alone is not a defence. Article 354 says every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if it be true, where no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. Truth has to be accompanied by those two things, or by one of the article's excepted cases.
What the law says
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown
Revised Penal Code, Article 354 — Requirement For Publicity. Read the full provision →
What the law says
A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty
Revised Penal Code, Article 354 — Requirement For Publicity. Read the full provision →
The presumption, and the three words that carry it
Article 354 provides that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. Three things follow. The presumption operates against the person who made the statement, so malice does not have to be proved before the question arises. Truth does not displace it — the article says even if it be true in terms. And what does displace it is a showing of good intention and justifiable motive, which the person who published must make out.
Good intention and justifiable motive are two requirements
They are joined by and, and they are not the same thing. Intention concerns the purpose with which the statement was made; motive concerns the reason there was for making it at all, and whether that reason was one the law regards as justifiable. A statement published to warn people of a real danger stands differently from the same statement published to humiliate, even where the facts are identical. This is why the question a court asks is rarely whether the post was accurate, and almost always why it was made and to whom.
The two excepted cases are narrow
The article excepts, first, a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty. Note both limbs: private, and made in the performance of a duty. A public post is not a private communication, and having felt strongly is not a duty. The second exception is a fair and true report, made in good faith and without comments or remarks, of official proceedings that are not confidential, or of acts of public officers in the exercise of their functions. The words without any comments or remarks are exacting.
Before you publish anything further
Take the question seriously in the direction of caution. Having proof is not the same as having a defence, and a second post explaining or defending the first is itself a publication that will be examined. If you have already posted, preserve the material and the evidence behind it rather than deleting in haste, and do not add to it. If you are the person written about, preserve the post with its date, its reach and its context. Either way this is a matter to put before a lawyer before the next step, not after it.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 354 — Requirement For Publicity
- Revised Penal Code, Article 353 — Definition Of Libel