Short answer. Possibly. Article 107 states that indemnification for consequential damages includes losses suffered by a third person by reason of the crime, so not being the named injured party is not by itself a bar. What has to be shown is that the loss came from the offence.
What the law says
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 →
A third person is named in the article itself
The common assumption is that only the complainant has anything to recover. Article 107 says otherwise. 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. A third person is exactly what the phrase suggests — someone outside both the offender and the victim, who nonetheless carried part of the cost. The article treats that person's loss as belonging to the same category as the victim's, not as a lesser or derivative kind of harm.
The connection has to be to the crime, not to the situation
Everything turns on by reason of the crime. A supplier who was not paid because the money was taken, a person whose property was consumed in the commission of the offence, an employer left with a specific expense caused by it — these are losses with a traceable line back to the act. Being nearby, being inconvenienced, or suffering in the general disorder that followed is not the same thing. The word to keep testing your own claim against is reason: can you state, in one sentence, how the offence produced this particular loss?
What the article does not decide
Article 107 describes the content of indemnification. It does not say how a person who is not the complainant goes about asserting a claim, in which proceeding, or subject to what time limits — those come from other rules, and they matter as much in practice as the entitlement does. Nor does it convert every loss connected to an offence into an award; the amount remains something a court determines on evidence. Reading this provision as a self-executing right to be paid is the mistake it most often invites.
What to put together now
Two things, in this order. First, the documents that establish your loss as a figure rather than an impression: invoices, ledgers, bank records, the contract that was frustrated. Second, whatever ties that figure to the offence — dates, correspondence, a police or incident report naming what happened and when. Bring both to a lawyer together with a note of whether a criminal case is already pending and where, because your position differs considerably depending on whether proceedings have begun.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 107 — What Indemnification Covers
- Revised Penal Code, Article 104 — What Civil Liability Includes