Short answer. It must say more. Rule 120, Section 2 requires an acquittal to state whether the prosecution's evidence absolutely failed to prove guilt or merely failed beyond reasonable doubt, and in either case, whether the act or omission from which civil liability might arise did not exist — not just a bare verdict.
What the law says
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Rule 120, Section 2 — Contents of the judgment. Read the full provision →
What the law says
In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
Rule 120, Section 2 — Contents of the judgment. Read the full provision →
Conviction judgments detail more than the verdict
Section 2 requires a judgment of conviction to state the legal qualification of the offense, any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the accused's degree of participation, the penalty imposed, and the civil liability or damages owed to the offended party, unless a separate civil action was reserved or waived. These required elements ensure a conviction is not just a bare verdict but a document a reviewing court can actually evaluate on its merits.
Why acquittal is not simply the mirror image of conviction
An acquittal is not just the absence of guilt. Section 2 requires the judgment to distinguish between two very different findings: that the prosecution's evidence absolutely failed to prove guilt, versus that it merely failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Those are different findings with different practical consequences. Determining which of the two applies can matter for the accused's reputation and for how the acquittal is subsequently treated in related proceedings.
The civil liability question survives acquittal
In either kind of acquittal, the judgment must determine whether the act or omission from which civil liability might arise did not exist. This matters because an acquittal on reasonable doubt does not necessarily wipe out civil liability — the judgment has to address that question directly rather than leave it open. This keeps the acquittal judgment from being silent on an issue that can directly affect whether the offended party may still recover damages.
Who this affects beyond the accused
The civil liability finding required in an acquittal judgment matters most directly to the offended party, since it can determine whether that party still has a basis to pursue damages arising from the same act despite the criminal case ending in acquittal. An acquittal grounded in the absolute failure of the prosecution's evidence to establish that the act occurred at all forecloses that civil recovery, while an acquittal based only on reasonable doubt leaves the door open depending on what the judgment specifically finds about the underlying act.