Short answer. Yes. Article 35 lets a person who claims to be injured by a criminal offense bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender when the prosecutor refuses or fails to file criminal proceedings. That civil case needs only a preponderance of evidence, the lighter standard used in civil suits, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What the law says
the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Civil Code, Article 35 — Civil Action Where No Criminal Case Prospers. Read the full provision →
A civil action survives the prosecutor's refusal
A decision not to prosecute does not always close every door. Article 35 covers the situation where a person claims to be injured by a criminal offense for which no independent civil action is otherwise granted, and either the investigating officer finds no reasonable ground to believe a crime was committed or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. In that case the article says the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. So the failure of the criminal track does not automatically extinguish your ability to seek compensation; a separate civil suit for damages remains open to you.
A lighter burden of proof
The civil route is easier to satisfy than a criminal prosecution. Article 35 states that such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence simply means the greater weight of credible evidence — enough to show your version is more likely true than not. This is far less demanding than proof beyond reasonable doubt, the standard a criminal case requires. That is precisely why a claim the prosecutor declined to pursue as a crime may still succeed as a civil demand for damages: the two proceedings answer different questions and are held to different levels of proof.
The defendant's safeguard against a baseless suit
The article balances the injured party's access to court with protection for the person sued. It provides that, on the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. The bond discourages the use of this civil action as a tool for harassment, since a plaintiff who sues maliciously may have to answer for the harm caused to the defendant. It is a reminder that the right to sue for damages here is not a license to file groundless claims; it comes with a mechanism to compensate a defendant vexed by a malicious one.
If criminal charges are filed later
The civil action does not run headlong past a criminal case that eventually materializes. The article provides that if, during the pendency of the civil action, an information is presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. So a later change of course by the prosecution puts the damages suit on hold rather than allowing the two to proceed in parallel. This ordering respects the primacy of the criminal case once it is actually brought, while preserving the civil claim, which resumes after the criminal proceedings conclude.
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.
- Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), represeted by Rosella A. santiago vs. Antonio O. Tobias III, G.R. No. 177780, January 25, 2012 — 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 →
- Isabelita Vital-Gozon vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 129132, July 8, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →