Short answer. No. The Civil Code makes this civil action independent of any criminal case against the officer, so you do not need a conviction — or even a filed criminal complaint — first. A preponderance of evidence, the ordinary civil standard, is enough to support the claim.
What the law says
The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Civil Code, Article 34 — Liability of Police for Refusing Aid. Read the full provision →
What Article 34 covers
Article 34 applies specifically to a member of a city or municipal police force who refuses or fails to render aid or protection to a person in a situation of danger to life or property. When that happens, the officer is primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality that employs him is subsidiarily responsible — meaning the local government answers only if the officer himself cannot satisfy the judgment. This is a distinct civil wrong built directly around a police officer's duty to help someone in danger.
Why you don't have to wait for a conviction
The article expressly makes this civil action independent of any criminal proceedings against the officer. That means you are not required to file a criminal complaint first, wait for one to be resolved, or obtain a conviction before pursuing your own claim for damages. The civil case can move on its own timeline, decided on its own evidence, regardless of whether a prosecutor ever files criminal charges or what a criminal court eventually decides.
What standard of proof applies
Because the civil action stands on its own, it is judged by the ordinary civil standard — a preponderance of evidence — rather than the much higher "proof beyond reasonable doubt" required to convict someone criminally. This is a meaningful difference: evidence that would not be enough to convict a police officer of a crime can still be enough to hold him civilly liable for refusing or failing to help you when your life or property was in danger.
Who can be held liable
Article 34 names two potentially liable parties. The police officer who refused or failed to act is primarily liable — the first one responsible for paying damages. The city or municipality that employs him is only subsidiarily responsible, which means it steps in to answer for the judgment only if the officer cannot pay it himself. This structure lets a claimant pursue the officer directly without having to prove anything against the local government beyond the officer's own employment and default in payment.
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 →
- Heirs of Eduardo Simon vs. Elvin Chan and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011 — 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 →
- Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. and Felix Q. Ruz vs. Antonio San Andres, G.R. No. 200444, August 15, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →