1) The basic idea

Philippine law recognizes that criminal guilt and civil liability for damages are not decided by the same yardstick. A person may be acquitted in a criminal case because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, yet the injured party may still be able to recover damages in a separate civil action using the lower civil standard of preponderance of evidence.

That is the central policy of Article 29 of the Civil Code.

2) The text and what it means (plain language)

Article 29 (Civil Code) provides, in substance, that:

When the accused is acquitted in a criminal case on the ground of reasonable doubt,
a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may still be filed, and
in that civil action, the plaintiff only needs to prove the defendant’s responsibility by preponderance of evidence.

In plain terms: “Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt” does not automatically mean “not liable for damages.”

3) When Article 29 applies

A. There must be a criminal case that ended in acquittal

Article 29 is triggered by an acquittal in the criminal case.

B. The acquittal must be based on reasonable doubt

This is the classic scenario: the judge believes the prosecution evidence is insufficient to meet the high criminal standard, but the facts may still indicate wrongdoing more likely than not.

C. The civil action is for damages arising from the same act or omission

The civil case must be anchored on the same conduct that caused injury, loss, or damage.

4) The key limitation: not all acquittals allow an Article 29 civil suit

Article 29 is strongest when the acquittal is because guilt wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt.

But Philippine doctrine also recognizes an important boundary:

If the criminal court’s judgment effectively finds that:

the act or omission did not exist, or
the accused did not commit it,

then a later civil action that depends on that same fact pattern can be barred, because the factual foundation for liability has been judicially negated.

Practical distinction:

Acquittal due to reasonable doubt: civil suit can still prosper (Article 29 scenario).
Acquittal because “he did not do it” / “no act occurred”: civil suit usually cannot revive the same allegation as the basis of liability.

Courts look at the language and findings of the criminal decision, not merely the word “acquitted.”

5) Why this is allowed: different purposes, different burdens of proof

Criminal case

Purpose: punish wrongdoing against the State
Standard: beyond reasonable doubt
Result: conviction or acquittal, possible imprisonment/fine

Civil case (Article 29)

Purpose: compensate the injured party
Standard: preponderance of evidence (more likely than not)
Result: money damages and other civil relief

This difference is also why double jeopardy does not prevent the civil case: you are not trying to punish the defendant again; you are seeking compensation based on civil proof.

6) What must the plaintiff prove in the Article 29 civil action

There is no single “formula,” but in practice the plaintiff must show:

Damage suffered (injury, loss, emotional distress, reputational harm, etc.)
Defendant’s act or omission that caused it
Causal connection between the act/omission and the damage
That it is more likely than not that the defendant is responsible (preponderance)

Because Article 29 is usually used after an acquittal, the civil case often resembles a “re-litigation” of the facts—but under civil rules and civil proof.

7) Who can sue and who can be sued

Who can sue

The injured party (complainant/victim)
The victim’s heirs (if the victim died)
Parties who suffered compensable damage because of the act (depending on the nature of damages)

Who can be sued

Typically the accused who was acquitted
Potentially other responsible persons if the civil theory supports it (for example, employers under vicarious liability in appropriate cases), subject to the chosen cause of action and evidence.

8) Relationship with the usual “civil liability arising from crime” (and why Article 29 is different)

Under Philippine procedure, a criminal case often carries with it a civil action for civil liability ex delicto (civil liability arising from the offense). When the accused is convicted, civil liability typically follows.

However, after acquittal, what happens depends on why:

If acquittal is because guilt wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt, civil liability may still be awarded in some settings or pursued separately.
If the decision finds the accused didn’t commit the act or the act didn’t exist, civil liability tied to that act is generally extinguished.

Article 29 is commonly understood as authorizing a civil case even when the criminal case ends in acquittal on reasonable doubt, precisely because civil liability can exist without criminal certainty.

9) Procedure: how an Article 29 civil action is filed (practical flow)

A. Timing

Commonly filed after acquittal, but conceptually it is an independent civil action premised on the same act/omission.
The safest practical approach is to file once the criminal decision is final, to avoid procedural complications—though the best timing depends on strategy, prescription, and the posture of the criminal case.

B. Where to file

In the proper civil court based on rules of jurisdiction and venue (generally where plaintiff or defendant resides, or where the cause of action arose, depending on the action and relief).

C. Evidence

The plaintiff may use:
- documentary evidence,
- witness testimony,
- expert testimony,
- and often, certified records from the criminal case (subject to the rules on admissibility).

A common strategic tool is to use the criminal trial transcripts and exhibits to build the civil case, but the civil court will still decide based on civil standards.

10) What damages may be recovered

An Article 29 civil action seeks damages, potentially including:

Actual/compensatory damages (proven financial loss: medical bills, repair costs, lost income, etc.)
Moral damages (mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, humiliation—when legally justified and proven)
Exemplary damages (as a deterrent, when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent under applicable standards)
Temperate or nominal damages (when loss is real but not fully proven, or to vindicate a right)
Attorney’s fees and costs (only when allowed under law and justified by the circumstances)

The exact mix depends on the nature of the wrong and the evidence.

11) Article 29 compared with other “independent civil actions” in the Civil Code

Article 29 is part of a broader Civil Code scheme that allows civil suits to proceed independently of criminal outcomes in specific situations. It’s often discussed alongside:

Article 30 (civil action when criminal action cannot proceed for reasons like death of the accused, etc., depending on context)
Article 31 (civil action based on obligation not arising from the act/omission complained of as a felony)
Article 32 (civil action for violation of constitutional rights by public officers or private individuals in specified situations)
Article 33 (independent civil actions in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries)
Article 34 (refusal or failure of police to render aid)

The practical difference

Article 33 actions are “independent” by express category (defamation, fraud, physical injuries).
Article 29 is a “post-acquittal gateway” when acquittal is due to reasonable doubt.

Also important: even without Article 29, an injured party may sometimes sue under quasi-delict (Article 2176) if the facts support negligence and the elements are met. Strategy often involves choosing the best-fitting civil theory (or pleading in the alternative, when allowed).

12) Defenses and obstacles you should expect

A defendant facing an Article 29 civil case commonly raises:

The acquittal actually found the act did not exist / defendant did not commit it
No preponderance of evidence (attack credibility, inconsistencies, missing proof of causation or damages)
Prescription (the claim was filed too late under the applicable prescriptive period)
Lack of damages or failure to prove amount
Independent cause arguments (damage not attributable to defendant, intervening cause, assumption of risk, contributory negligence where relevant, etc.)

The biggest early battleground is often what the criminal judgment actually decided and whether it leaves room for civil liability.

13) Prescription (time limits): a critical practical issue

Article 29 itself does not supply a single prescriptive period for all cases. The time limit depends on the nature of the civil action and the source of obligation you are suing on (e.g., quasi-delict, contract, other obligations, specific statutory causes).

Because prescription can be case-dispositive, lawyers usually analyze:

the best legal theory for civil recovery,
the corresponding prescriptive period, and
how the timeline of the criminal case interacts with filing strategy.

14) Practical examples (how Article 29 works in real life)

Example 1: Assault allegation, acquittal on reasonable doubt

A victim alleges assault. The court acquits because the prosecution’s witnesses were inconsistent—reasonable doubt remains. The victim later files a civil case for damages. If the civil court finds it more likely than not that the defendant caused injury, damages may be awarded despite acquittal.

Example 2: Theft case, acquittal because “accused did not take the item”

The criminal court explicitly finds that the accused did not commit the taking and that evidence shows someone else did. A later civil suit claiming damages from the accused based on the same alleged taking will likely fail because the factual predicate was negated.

15) Drafting and litigation pointers (Philippine practice)

If you’re pursuing an Article 29 civil action, the most effective approach typically includes:

Attach and analyze the criminal decision carefully: extract whether it was truly “reasonable doubt” or a factual finding of non-participation/non-occurrence.
Build a civil-proof narrative: focus on credibility, corroboration, and objective evidence, not just criminal-style guilt framing.
Prove damages meticulously: receipts, medical certificates, repair estimates, income records, and competent testimony.
Anticipate defenses early: especially prescription and the “act did not exist / not the doer” argument.
Consider alternative or complementary civil theories where appropriate (for example, quasi-delict), while avoiding inconsistent positions that could undermine credibility.

16) Bottom line

Article 29 is the Civil Code’s explicit recognition that a criminal acquittal on reasonable doubt does not necessarily erase civil accountability. It allows a harmed party to pursue damages using the civil standard of proof, so long as the criminal judgment did not definitively negate the act or the defendant’s participation.

If you want, I can also provide:

a sample complaint outline for an Article 29 damages case (Philippine pleading style),
a checklist for reading the criminal judgment to determine whether Article 29 is viable, or
a decision tree comparing Article 29 vs. Article 33 vs. quasi-delict for common scenarios.