Short answer. Yes. Article 30 of the Civil Code expressly permits a separate civil action to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense. When no criminal proceedings are pending during the civil case, the standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence — the lower civil standard, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What the law says
When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Civil Code, Article 30 — Separate Civil Action for Civil Liability From a Crime. Read the full provision →
Bringing a civil case without a parallel criminal case
Article 30 gives victims an independent path to damages even when no criminal prosecution is running. The article sets the evidentiary standard clearly: where no criminal proceedings have been filed while the civil case is pending, the complainant need only prove the act by a preponderance of evidence — meaning it is more likely true than not. This is a much lower bar than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard required to convict in a criminal case. You do not have to wait for a criminal prosecution, and you do not need a criminal conviction before you can recover.
Why this rule exists
Civil liability arising from a criminal act has its own legal basis in the Civil Code, separate from the penal provisions of the Revised Penal Code or special criminal laws. A person who is harmed by another's criminal conduct has property and personal rights that the civil law protects independently. There are many reasons why a criminal case might not be filed — the offender has left the jurisdiction, the prosecutor has declined to pursue the charge, or the offended party simply prefers a civil remedy. Article 30 ensures that the absence of a criminal prosecution does not leave the victim without recourse.
What 'during the pendency of the civil case' means
The article specifies that no criminal proceedings need to be instituted during the pendency of the civil case. This is an important temporal qualification. If a criminal case is eventually filed while your civil case is still ongoing, procedural rules governing the relationship between the two actions — such as suspension of the civil case pending resolution of the criminal one — may come into play. The preponderance-of-evidence standard under Article 30 applies specifically to the scenario where the civil case runs without any simultaneous criminal proceedings.
What you can recover
A successful civil action arising from a criminal act can yield actual or compensatory damages for the harm suffered, moral damages for the mental anguish caused, and in appropriate cases exemplary damages to deter the conduct. The specifics depend on what you can prove and what the Civil Code provisions on damages allow. What Article 30 gives you is the avenue and the evidentiary standard — the extent of recovery depends on the facts and the nature of the wrong committed against you.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- MVRS Publications, Inc., et al. vs. Islamic Da'Wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Lipata y Ortiza, G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Allan M. Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water Employees Union, namely, Eduardo B. Borela, et al, G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine, (AMEC-BCCM), et al, G.R. No. 141994, January 17, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →