Text of the provision
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
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 someone believes they were wronged by a crime but no criminal case is pursued — the investigating officer finds no probable cause, or the prosecutor declines — and no independent civil action otherwise exists, the injured person may still bring a civil action for damages, provable by preponderance of evidence. A bond may be required against a malicious complaint, and if the prosecutor later files a criminal information, the civil action is suspended until the criminal case ends.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 29 — civil action after acquittal on reasonable doubt.
- Article 36 — prejudicial questions.
Cases citing this article
- Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. (Metrobank), represeted by Rosella A. santiago vs. Antonio O. Tobias III, G.R. No. 177780, January 25, 2012 — 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 →
- 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.