Arrest Warrants for Estafa and Other Deceits

(Articles 315 – 318, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines)

1. Overview

“Estafa and Other Deceits” are grouped in Title X (Crimes Against Property) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The four articles involved—315, 316, 317 and 318—protect property rights and public confidence in commercial dealings by punishing fraud in its many forms. Although each article defines a separate felony, the procedural rules on how suspects are arrested, investigated, tried and bailed out follow the Rules of Criminal Procedure (especially Rules 112-114) and the 1987 Constitution.

2. Substantive Law

Article	Short title	Core element(s)	Typical example
315	Estafa (Swindling)	Deceit and damage through (a) abuse of confidence, (b) false pretenses, or (c) fraudulent means	Misappropriating entrusted funds; issuing a bouncing post-dated check to obtain goods
316	Other Forms of Swindling	Fraudulent disposition of real/personal property already encumbered or not owned	Selling a mortgaged car without the mortgagee’s consent
317	Swindling of a Minor	Taking advantage of a minor’s inexperience to defraud him/her of property or money	Inducing a 17-year-old to sign away a parcel of land
318	Other Deceits	“Catch-all” fraud not punished elsewhere (e.g., pretending to have the power to influence public officers for a fee)	Charging a fee to “speed up” a government permit when the influence is non-existent

2.1 Elements of Estafa under Article 315

Deceit or Abuse of Confidence
Damage or Prejudice Capable of Pecuniary Estimation
Causal Connection between the deceit and the damage

The article lists eleven specific modes, but they fall into three families:

Abuse of confidence – e.g., misappropriation of money in deposit, trust, commission, or administration; diversion of pledged property.
False pretenses or fraudulent acts – e.g., use of fictitious name, false power, bouncing checks (separate from B.P. 22), faking qualifications.
Fraudulent means – e.g., resorting to fraudulent machinations other than those above.

2.2 Penalties after R.A. 10951 (effectivity ✓ 30 Aug 2017)

The RPC penalties were inflation-adjusted by Republic Act 10951. For Articles 315 & 318 the scale now hinges on the amount defrauded (rounded values):

Amount swindled (₱)	Penalty
> 2,000,000	Prisión mayor maximum to reclusión temporal minimum (12 y 1 d – 20 y)
1,200,001 – 2,000,000	Prisión mayor medium to maximum (8 y 1 d – 12 y)
600,001 – 1,200,000	Prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum (6 y 1 d – 8 y)
200,001 – 600,000	Prisión correccional medium (4 y 2 m 1 d – 6 y)
40,001 – 200,000	Arresto mayor maximum to prisión correccional minimum (2 m 1 d – 4 y 2 m)
≤ 40,000	Arresto mayor maximum (4 m 1 d – 6 m) or Arresto mayor medium if ≤ 10,000

Articles 316 & 317 carry fixed penalties (prisión correccional in its maximum period and arresto mayor in its maximum period, respectively) independent of amount.

3. Arrest-Related Questions

3.1 Is an Offense Bailable?

Under Article III § 13 of the Constitution, bail is a matter of right before conviction except when (1) the maximum penalty is reclusión perpetua or death and (2) the evidence of guilt is strong. Since even the highest estafa bracket tops out at reclusión temporal, estafa and other deceits are always bailable. When the prescribed maximum exceeds 6 years, bail remains a right but may be subject to additional conditions under Rule 114 § 9 (e.g., travel restrictions).

3.2 When is a Warrant Necessary?

General rule – No person may be arrested without a warrant issued by a judge after finding probable cause in compliance with Rule 112 § 6 and Art. III § 2.
Exception (Rule 113 § 5) – Warrantless arrest is lawful if:
1. The suspect was caught in flagrante delicto committing estafa (e.g., handing a forged deed).
2. An offense has just been committed and there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed it (hot-pursuit).
3. The person is an escapee.

3.3 How Is the Warrant Issued?

Filing of Complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor (OP) or directly in court for barangay-exempt cases.
Preliminary Investigation (PI) – Required when the penalty exceeds 4 years 2 months (thus, most estafa complaints unless the amount is very small).
Information filed in the proper trial court (see jurisdiction below).
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause – The judge personally evaluates the PI record or conducts own examination (Rule 112 § 5).
Issuance of Warrant of Arrest if probable cause exists; otherwise options are:
- Summons if accused may be served without risk of flight (Rule 112 § 6).
- Dismissal of the case for utter absence of probable cause (Salonga v. Cruz Paño, G.R. L-59524, 1985).

The warrant must describe the accused with particularity and must be served anytime, day or night, by the arresting officer (Rule 113 § 7).

3.4 Service and Booking

Accused is informed of the cause of arrest and rights (Miranda doctrine).
Brought to the nearest police station for booking and inquest (if warrantless).
Must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities within 36 hours of arrest for filing of charges or release (Art. 125 RPC).

4. Bail Proceedings

Application filed before the court that issued the warrant (or any RTC/MTC judge if urgent).
Amount guided by the 2018 DOJ-SC Bail Bond Guide (estafa: generally ≥ ₹40,000 up to several hundred thousand depending on amount involved and aggravating factors).
Forms – corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
Summary Hearing required if prosecution insists on higher bail or opposes bail (Sec 8, Rule 114).
Bail may be cancelled for violation of conditions (e.g., failure to appear, commission of another offense).

5. Venue and Jurisdiction

Court	Amount Involved / Penalty	Basis
MTC/MTCC/MCTC	Offenses where the imposable penalty ≤ 6 years (e.g., estafa ≤ ₱1.2 M)	Sec 32(2), Judiciary Reorganization Act (B.P. 129) as amended by R.A. 11576 (2021)
RTC	Imposable penalty > 6 years (e.g., estafa > ₱1.2 M; Article 316)**	Same
Sandiganbayan	When an accountable public officer commits estafa in relation to office and the amount ≥ ₱1 M	P.D. 1606, as amended

Venue lies where any essential element of estafa was committed or where the damaged property or payment was received.

6. Prescription

Art. 90 RPC (as amended) fixes prescriptive periods by maximum penalty:

Maximum Penalty	Prescriptive Period
Prisión correccional (≤ 6 yrs)	10 years
Prisión mayor (6 yrs 1 d – 12 yrs)	15 years
Reclusión temporal (12 yrs 1 d – 20 yrs)	20 years

Estafa typically prescribes in 15 or 20 years depending on the bracket. The period begins on the day of discovery of the fraud (People v. Dizon, G.R. 228743, 2018).

7. Civil Liability & Restitution

Conviction carries automatic obligation to:

Return the thing, if possible; otherwise
Pay the value plus interest; and
Indemnify consequential damages (Art. 107-109, RPC).

The court may issue a writ of attachment (Rule 127) at the start of the criminal action to preserve assets for restitution.

8. Defenses & Mitigating Circumstances

No deceit / no damage – Both are indispensable.
Novation before demand – Extinguishes criminal liability only if it completely obliterates deceit before the crime is consummated (People v. Benito).
Good faith – Honest belief of authority or ownership negates fraudulent intent.
Reimbursement after filing – Does not erase criminal liability but may mitigate penalty.

9. Relationship with B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

B.P. 22 punishes mere issuance of a worthless check (malum prohibitum).
Estafa by post-dated check (Art. 315 ¶ 2[d]) requires deceit and damage.
One act may give rise to both crimes; filing either case does not bar the other (People v. Bernabe, 2019).

10. Flow-Chart: From Complaint to Possible Arrest

Affidavit-Complaint + documentary proof ⇒ DOJ/City Prosecutor
PI / Counter-Affidavit ⇒ Resolution
Information filed ⇒ Judge evaluates probable cause
Probable cause found?
- Yes → Warrant or Summons issued → Arrest → Booking
- No → Case dismissed √
Bail application / arraignment (within 15 days of arrest)
Pre-trial → Trial → Decision

11. Helpful Jurisprudence (selected)

Case	G.R. No.	Key Doctrine
Salonga v. Cruz Paño	L-59524 (1985)	Judges must personally determine probable cause before issuing a warrant.
People v. Dizon	228743 (2018)	Estafa’s prescriptive period starts upon discovery of misappropriation.
Lim v. People	230651-52 (2019)	Demand is not an element if misappropriation is otherwise proved.
Mendoza-Ong v. People	198765-66 (2014)	An accused may face both estafa and B.P. 22 for the same check.
People v. Lacerna	202976 (2021)	Clarifies computation of estafa penalties under R.A. 10951.

12. Practical Tips

Complainants should gather originals/certified copies of contracts, checks, receipts, and certification of dishonor (for checks) before filing.
Accused should invoke the right to counsel immediately and prepare to post cash bail to avoid detention.
Regularly check the e-raffle system or courtroom bulletin for warrant status and settings.
Settling or refunding after filing may still justify a motion for dismissal on affidavit of desistance, but the court is not bound to grant it because estafa is public in nature.

13. Conclusion

Arrest warrants in estafa and the related “other deceits” revolve around a single linchpin: probable cause anchored on the statutory elements of fraud and damage. While the crimes are generally bailable, the financial stakes (now indexed by R.A. 10951) determine not only the penalty but also the court that will try the case and the rigor with which bail conditions are assessed. Mastery of both the substantive provisions (Articles 315-318) and the procedural safeguards (Rules 112-114, constitutional protections) is essential for lawyers, businesspeople and law-enforcement officers navigating Philippine fraud litigation.