Text of the provision
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence.
Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
An acquittal on reasonable doubt is not the end of civil liability. Because a crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt but civil liability needs only a preponderance of evidence, the injured party may still sue civilly for the same act. The court may require a bond against a malicious suit. The judge should state whether the acquittal rests on reasonable doubt; if not stated, it may be inferred from the decision.
Related provisions
- Article 30 — separate civil action for civil liability from a crime.
- Article 33 — independent civil actions for defamation, fraud, physical injuries.
Cases interpreting this article
- Authorities on this article will be added here as each is verified against primary sources.