Short answer. Yes. Article 107 says indemnification for consequential damages includes not only those caused the injured party but also those suffered by his family by reason of the crime. So loss the family actually sustained because of the offence is within what may be indemnified.
What the law says
Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
Revised Penal Code, Article 107 — What Indemnification Covers. Read the full provision →
The article is written to reach past the victim
Article 107 defines what indemnification covers, and it does so expansively: indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime. The structure of that sentence matters. It begins by acknowledging the obvious case — harm to the person the crime was committed against — and then adds two further categories. The family is named expressly, which forecloses the argument that only the person named in the information has a loss the law will recognise.
"By reason of the crime" is the boundary
Breadth of category is not breadth of claim. The qualifying phrase is by reason of the crime, and it requires a real connection between the offence and the loss being complained of. Distress and disruption that a family genuinely traces to the crime are one thing; expenditure or misfortune that would have happened anyway is another, and the words of the article do not reach it. This is the point on which family claims are usually tested, so it is worth being honest with yourself about which items on your list are consequences of the offence and which merely followed it in time.
Consequential damages, and what that phrase signals
The article speaks of consequential damages — losses that flow from the crime rather than the immediate injury itself. That is why it can extend to persons other than the victim at all: the direct harm has one address, but its consequences have several. What Article 107 settles is the content of indemnification, not the mechanics of asserting it. Who may present a claim, in what proceeding, and by when are governed by other rules entirely, and none of that is answered by this provision however plainly it describes the loss.
What makes a family's loss visible to a court
Documents, kept contemporaneously. Receipts for what the family actually spent, records of income interrupted, and anything showing why a particular expense arose from the offence rather than around it. A running note of dates helps more than people expect, because the connection the article requires is usually demonstrated by sequence. Assemble that before the conversation with a lawyer rather than after; the difference between a claim that is recognised and one that is not is generally the quality of the record, not the sincerity of the account.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 107 — What Indemnification Covers
- Revised Penal Code, Article 100 — Criminal Liability Means Civil Liability