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.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 30 — separate civil action for civil liability from a crime.
- Article 33 — independent civil actions for defamation, fraud, physical injuries.
Cases citing this article
- Spouses Enrique Llonillo and Marites Llonillo vs. People of the Phillippines, G.R. No. 246787, January 30, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Josephine M. Sanchez vs. Far East Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 155309, November 15, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- George Manantan, vs. Court of Appeals and Spouses Marcelino Nicolas and Maria Nicolas, G.R. No. 107125, January 29, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Ruben Maniago vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 104392, February 20, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Bdo Unibank, Inc. vs. Cristina Barcellano y Riego, G.R. No. 261264, February 12, 2026 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.