In the Philippines, it has become tragically common for victims of investment scams, romance scams, pig-butchering schemes, and other online frauds to face not only financial ruin but also criminal prosecution for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The typical pattern is painfully familiar: the victim, already deeply entangled in the scam and believing that “just one more payment” will release the promised millions, borrows money from relatives, friends, co-workers, or informal lenders. When the scam inevitably collapses and the victim cannot repay, the private lender files a criminal complaint for estafa, alleging deceit or false pretenses.

This article exhaustively discusses the legal risks, the exact elements that must be proven for conviction, the most effective defenses available to genuine scam victims, relevant Supreme Court rulings, and practical steps to minimize or completely avoid estafa liability.

I. The Crime of Estafa Through Deceit (Art. 315, par. 2[a] and 2[b], RPC)

Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by:

Using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits (par. 2[a]); or
Altering quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business, or by pretending to have bribed any government employee, or by resorting to some other deceitful means (par. 2[b]); or
Postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds or credit (par. 2[d] – the “bad check” provision).

The most common provision used against scam victims is paragraph 2(a) – false pretenses or fraudulent representations.

Four Essential Elements That the Prosecution Must Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt

False pretense or fraudulent representation made by the accused prior to or simultaneous with the obtaining of the money/property;
Such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made with fraudulent intent (dolo);
The offended party relied on the false pretense and parted with his money or property because of it;
As a result, the offended party suffered damage.

If even one element is missing, the case must be dismissed. This is the strongest shield for genuine scam victims.

II. Why Most “Estafa” Complaints Against Scam Victims Actually Fail the Elements Test

A. Absence of Fraudulent Intent at the Time of Borrowing

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that deceit must exist at the very moment the money is obtained. If the borrower genuinely believed he would be able to repay (because he believed the scammer’s promise of huge returns), there is no criminal intent.

Key rulings:

People v. Ojeda (G.R. No. 104238, June 3, 2004) – “There must be evidence that the pretense was false ab initio and was the efficient cause that induced the victim to part with his money.”
People v. Balasa (G.R. No. 126045, March 1, 2000) – Mere failure to repay a loan does not constitute estafa if there was no deceit employed at the inception of the obligation.
People v. Menil (G.R. No. 115054-66, September 12, 2000) – When the borrower truly believed in the investment scheme, criminal intent is absent.

In short: if you honestly believed the scammer’s story (e.g., “I’m stuck abroad, send money for customs fees and I’ll send you $500,000”), and you borrowed money because of that belief, intending to repay once the promised funds arrived, you lacked deceitful intent.

B. The Lender’s Knowledge or Participation in the Scam Story

Many victims openly tell the lender the exact story the scammer fed them (“My online boyfriend is a US engineer on an oil rig and needs money for equipment release”). When the lender nevertheless gives the money, hoping for a share of the windfall, the Supreme Court considers the lender a participant in the delusion rather than a victim of deceit.

See Serrano v. People (G.R. No. 220628, July 5, 2017) and Libuit v. People (G.R. No. 202739, June 5, 2019) – when the private complainant was aware of the risky or speculative nature of the transaction, reliance on the representation is negated.

C. Pure Loan Transactions Are Civil, Not Criminal

The Court has been consistent since the 1940s:

A simple loan, even if unpaid, is a civil obligation. Criminal liability attaches only when deceit was employed to obtain the loan.
Pamintuan v. People (G.R. No. 172928, June 23, 2010)
Nagrampa v. People (G.R. No. 215086, August 7, 2019) – “Mere failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute estafa.”

III. Situations Where Scam Victims Actually Risk Conviction

Despite the above protections, conviction is possible in these scenarios:

Fabricating a completely different story to the lender
Example: You tell your sister the money is for your child’s leukemia treatment, but you actually sent it to a scammer. This is classic estafa by false pretense (People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012).
Presenting fake documents
Forged remittance slips, fake investment contracts, doctored bank statements shown to the lender to induce the loan = estafa almost automatically.
Habitual borrowing from multiple persons using the same scam story
Courts view this as evidence of a syndicated scheme (syndicated estafa under P.D. 1689 if five or more persons).
Issuing postdated checks that bounce without funds
This triggers both estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) and BP 22 violation. Even if you were scammed, the check law is malum prohibitum – intent is irrelevant.

IV. Most Effective Defenses and Evidence for Scam Victims

File your own complaint first
File syndicated estafa, violation of R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act), R.A. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act), or R.A. 12010 (Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act of 2024) against the scammer immediately. This proves you are a victim, not a perpetrator.
Preserve all digital evidence
Screenshots of chats, voice calls, video calls, GCash/Maya transactions, bank transfers, emails, fake profiles – everything. Submit these to the prosecutor during preliminary investigation.
Sworn affidavit detailing the exact timeline
Explain how the scammer groomed you, the exact representations made, and why you believed them. Attach psychological evaluation if possible (many victims suffer from scam-induced trauma or anxiety disorders).
Prove the lender knew the real purpose
Text messages or recorded conversations where you told the lender “This is for my online girlfriend’s plane ticket” are gold. The lender cannot later claim ignorance.
Counter-charge for perjury or false testimony
When lenders lie in their complaint-affidavit (claiming you said the money was for business when you actually disclosed the scam story), file perjury charges. This often forces them to withdraw.
Motion to Quash or Dismiss during preliminary investigation
Most prosecutors dismiss these cases when presented with clear evidence that the accused is also a victim.

V. Practical Steps to Avoid Estafa Charges Entirely

Never lie about the purpose of the loan. If you must borrow, tell the truth – no matter how embarrassing.
Get the loan agreement in writing stating the real purpose (“This loan is to be sent to Mr. John Smith in Dubai for investment release”).
Record the conversation (one-party consent is allowed under R.A. 4200 if you are a party to the conversation).
Immediately report the scam to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or NBI Cybercrime Division and get a case reference number.
Do not issue postdated checks if you have no funds – this is the fastest way to get convicted.

VI. Recent Developments (2023–2025)

Republic Act No. 12010 (Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act, signed July 2024) now penalizes money mules with 7–20 years imprisonment. Victims who knowingly allow their accounts to be used can be charged, but genuine victims who were deceived are expressly excluded under Sec. 14 (exemptions).
The Supreme Court in People v. Ocampo (G.R. No. 253287, June 28, 2023) again reiterated that victims of romance/investment scams who borrow money believing in good faith cannot be convicted of estafa.
DOJ Circular No. 020 s. 2023 instructs prosecutors to be more circumspect in filing estafa cases arising from online scams and to prioritize prosecution of the actual scammers.

Conclusion

Being a victim of a scam is already devastating. Facing estafa charges on top of it is a cruel second victimization that the Philippine legal system increasingly recognizes as unjust. When the four elements of estafa – particularly deceitful intent and reliance by the lender – are absent, conviction is legally impossible. With proper documentation, immediate reporting of the scam, and honest disclosure to lenders, genuine victims almost always prevail.

The law protects the deceived, not the deceivers. If you were deceived twice – first by the scammer, then by a lender who willingly participated in your delusion – the Revised Penal Code and recent jurisprudence stand firmly on your side.