Short answer. Yes. Article 33 lets you bring a civil action for damages over physical injuries entirely separate and distinct from the criminal case, and it proceeds independently of that criminal prosecution — you do not have to wait for the criminal case to end, and it only needs to be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
What the law says
In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party.
Civil Code, Article 33 — Independent Civil Action (Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries). Read the full provision →
What the law says
Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Civil Code, Article 33 — Independent Civil Action (Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries). Read the full provision →
A civil action separate from the criminal case
Article 33 addresses exactly your situation: in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Physical injuries caused to you fall directly within this article, so you are not limited to whatever civil liability might eventually be decided as part of the criminal case — you may pursue your own separate civil action for damages.
It proceeds on its own timeline
The independence this article grants is not just about who may sue, but about timing too: such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Your civil case does not have to pause and wait for the criminal case against the other party to finish. The two cases move forward on their own separate tracks.
A different, lighter standard of proof
The criminal case against the other person requires proof beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can result. Your independent civil action under Article 33 does not carry that heavy burden — it requires only a preponderance of evidence, meaning the evidence on your side simply has to be more convincing than the evidence against it. That is a meaningfully lower bar, and it is one reason the outcome of the criminal case and the outcome of your civil case can differ.
The same article covers defamation and fraud as well
Physical injuries are one of three situations Article 33 lists together, alongside defamation and fraud. All three share the same independent, preponderance-of-evidence civil action described above, which is why this provision is the one people usually reach for when they want to pursue damages on their own rather than through the criminal proceeding alone — regardless of which of the three underlying wrongs the injured party actually suffered.
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.
- Alastair John Kane vs. Patricia Roggenkamp, G.R. No. 214326, July 6, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Eduardo Simon vs. Elvin Chan and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →