Short answer. Yes. Your claim does not depend on a prosecution. The Civil Code makes anyone whose fault or negligence causes damage obliged to pay for it, and that obligation stands on its own — whether the police filed anything, and whether a criminal court ever acted, is beside the point.
What the law says
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Civil Code, Article 2176 — Quasi-Delict Defined (Culpa Aquiliana). Read the full provision →
The civil claim never needed the criminal one
Article 2176 provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Nothing in that sentence conditions the obligation on a charge being laid, a case being filed, or the State taking any interest at all. Prosecutors decline matters for reasons that have nothing to do with whether a driver was careless — the evidence may not meet the criminal standard, or the incident may simply not have been pursued. Your right to be compensated is measured against a different provision, a different standard of proof and a different opponent: the driver himself, not the State.
What you have to show is negligence, not criminality
The elements are damage, fault or negligence, and a causal connection between them. In a collision that usually turns on ordinary facts — the position of the vehicles, the direction of travel, speed, signals, the state of the road, and whether either driver did what a reasonably careful driver would have done. Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt; a civil claim for damages does not, which is precisely why a matter too thin to charge can still be strong enough to win. Photographs of the scene, the police blotter entry, dashcam footage and the names of witnesses are worth more than any argument about who was at fault.
The driver may not be the only person liable
If the vehicle was being driven for someone else — a delivery van, a company car, a hired driver — the Civil Code also makes employers answerable for damage caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, subject to the defence that they exercised the proper diligence in selecting and supervising them. That matters practically rather than theoretically. A driver with no assets and no insurance may be liable and still be unable to pay, while an employer usually can. So establish early who owned the vehicle, who was operating it and in what capacity, and whether an insurer is behind it.
What to do next
Collect the repair estimates and eventual invoices, the photographs, the report of the incident, and any medical records if anyone was hurt, then put them in date order. Write down your own account of what happened while it is still fresh, because memory of a collision degrades quickly and the version you record now is the one you will be held to. Be careful about signing a release in exchange for a quick payment from an insurer before you know the full extent of the damage. A lawyer can tell you what the claim is realistically worth once the file exists — but not before.
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.
- Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp. vs. People of the Philippines and Rosario P. Dy, etc, G.R. No. 129029, April 3, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. and Felix Q. Ruz vs. Antonio San Andres, G.R. No. 200444, August 15, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- San Ildefonso Lines, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119771, April 24, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →