Text of the provision
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
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
For three classes of wrong — defamation, fraud, and physical injuries — the victim has an independent civil action, entirely separate from the criminal case, provable by mere preponderance of evidence. The Supreme Court reads these terms broadly: "physical injuries" here covers bodily harm generally (including that resulting in death), and "fraud" covers estafa. The civil and criminal cases may run at the same time.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 29 — civil action surviving acquittal on reasonable doubt.
- Article 2219 — moral damages for these wrongs (once built).
Cases citing this article
- Alastair John Kane vs. Patricia Roggenkamp, G.R. No. 214326, July 6, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rafael Jose Consing, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013 — 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 →
- Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Caterpillar, Inc. vs. Manolo P. Samson/Caterpillar, Inc. vs. Manolo P. Samson, G.R. No. 205972 / G.R. No. 164352, November 9, 2016 — 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.