Text of the provision
Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
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
Where the civil liability arises from a criminal offense but is pursued in a separate civil action — and no criminal case is filed while it is pending — the plaintiff need only prove the act by a preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. It lets a victim recover damages without waiting on, or being defeated by, the prosecution of the crime.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 29 — civil action after acquittal on reasonable doubt.
- Article 31 — civil action independent of the crime.
Cases citing this article
- MVRS Publications, Inc., et al. vs. Islamic Da'Wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- People of the Philippines vs. Gerry Lipata y Ortiza, G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016 — 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 →
- Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine, (AMEC-BCCM), et al, G.R. No. 141994, January 17, 2005 — 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 →
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.