- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 35
- Topic
- Civil action where no independent civil action is provided
- Status
- In force
- Book
- Preliminary Title
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 2 Human Relations (n)
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
ARTICLE 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.
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
When a person claims injury from a criminal offense for which no independent civil action is provided, and the criminal case does not proceed (no probable cause, or the prosecutor declines), they may still file a separate civil action for damages, proved by preponderance of evidence. It preserves a civil remedy when the criminal case does not push through.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Key points
Article 35 covers the situation where a person claims injury from a criminal offense but no independent civil action is granted by the Code or a special law, and either the investigating officer finds no reasonable ground to believe a crime was committed or the prosecutor declines to file charges.
In that case the claimant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender, provable by a preponderance of evidence, and the court may require a bond on the defendant's motion. The article completes the set of independent-civil-action provisions with Articles 29, 30, and 34.
Cases applying this article
- Mary Elizabeth Mercado v. Rene V. Ongpin G.R. No. 207324
- Sally Go-Bangayan v. Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. G.R. No. 201061
- William R. Bayani v. Panay Electric Co. G.R. No. 139680
- Gianni de Munari v. Thelma Gagui Asprec Also Known As Thelma de Munari G.R. No. 262831