Yes. A cooperative in the Philippines can file a criminal complaint for estafa when it is the offended party (the victim) of fraud or deceit that caused it damage. In practice, the cooperative files the complaint through an authorized representative, and the accused is typically the individual who committed the acts (e.g., an officer, employee, member, borrower, supplier, or other third party).

That said, there’s an important legal housekeeping point: “Estafa” is primarily punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), not Article 314. Article 314 deals with certain frauds (a related but narrower provision), while Article 315 is the main “estafa” provision used by prosecutors and courts. Many people casually say “Article 314 estafa,” but most cooperative fraud scenarios are evaluated under Article 315 (and sometimes Article 316 for other deceits, or special laws like B.P. Blg. 22 for bouncing checks).

This article explains how and when a cooperative may file, what must be proved, who may be liable, how the process works, and the common pitfalls.

1) Legal Personality: Why a Cooperative Can Be a Complainant

Under Philippine law, a cooperative is a juridical person—a legal entity separate from its members and officers. As such, it can:

Own property and funds
Enter into contracts
Suffer injury or damage
File cases (civil and criminal) as the offended party

In a criminal case like estafa, the State prosecutes, but the cooperative is the private offended party and may:

initiate the complaint,
submit evidence,
claim restitution/civil liability,
participate through counsel.

Who signs and represents the cooperative? Usually someone authorized by the Board (e.g., Chairperson, General Manager/CEO, or another officer) via a Board Resolution / Secretary’s Certificate.

2) Estafa vs. “Frauds” Under Article 314 (and Why the Label Matters)

Article 315 (Estafa): the usual charging provision

Most cooperative-related scams and misappropriations fall here, such as:

an officer/employee misappropriating collections,
a borrower obtaining a loan through false pretenses,
a supplier receiving payment and failing to deliver with deceit,
a person issuing a check as part of a fraudulent scheme.

Article 314 (Frauds): less commonly used in cooperative cases

Article 314 is a specific fraud provision. In real-world prosecution, cooperative complaints are more often framed under Article 315 because it is more flexible and directly addresses the usual fact patterns.

Practical takeaway: When drafting the complaint, focus less on “Article number” and more on the facts that match the elements. Prosecutors determine the proper charge.

3) The Core Idea of Estafa (Article 315)

Estafa is generally fraud causing damage through:

Deceit/false pretenses, or
Abuse of trust / misappropriation, or
Other fraudulent means specified by law.

A cooperative can be the victim if it suffered damage, including:

loss of money or property,
missed collections,
depletion of cooperative funds,
unpaid loans obtained through deceit,
unreturned entrusted property.

4) Common Estafa Scenarios Involving Cooperatives

A. Misappropriation or Conversion of Funds (Article 315(1)(b))

This is one of the most common for cooperatives.

Examples

A cashier/collector receives members’ payments or loan amortizations but does not remit and instead uses the money.
An officer entrusted with cooperative funds diverts them to personal accounts.
A person receives goods/property “in trust” (for sale, safekeeping, administration) then refuses to return or account.

Typical elements to prove

The cooperative entrusted money/property to the accused (for administration, safekeeping, delivery, or return), creating an obligation to deliver/return/account.
The accused misappropriated/converted it, or denied receipt.
The cooperative suffered prejudice/damage.
Demand to return/account was made (often important evidence; not always strictly indispensable in every fact pattern, but usually strengthens the case a lot).

Evidence commonly used

job description / appointment papers (showing trust duty),
accountability forms, cash count sheets, collection reports,
ledgers, receipts, official receipts, passbooks,
audit reports and findings,
demand letters and proof of service,
admissions, text messages, acknowledgments,
bank records (when available lawfully).

B. Estafa by Deceit / False Pretenses (Article 315(2)(a))

Used when the accused induced the cooperative to release money/property through lies.

Examples

Loan applicant submits falsified income documents, fake collateral documents, or impersonates someone, causing loan release.
A person falsely claims authority, identity, or ownership to secure a loan or release of funds.
Vendor or contractor uses a fraudulent story to obtain downpayment then disappears.

Typical elements to prove

The accused made false pretenses/fraudulent acts before or at the time the cooperative parted with property/money.
The cooperative relied on the deceit.
Because of that reliance, the cooperative delivered money/property.
The cooperative suffered damage.

Evidence

falsified documents (pay slips, IDs, collateral papers),
verification reports, HR/employer confirmations,
appraisal/registry inconsistencies,
witnesses who processed the loan,
CCTV/transaction logs,
communications proving misrepresentation.

C. Checks in Cooperative Transactions: Estafa vs. B.P. 22

Cooperatives often encounter bounced checks (e.g., from borrowers, members, or buyers).

B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the act of issuing a bouncing check (a special law).
Estafa may apply when the check is part of a fraudulent scheme and the cooperative was deceived into parting with money/property.

It is possible (depending on facts) for a complainant to pursue B.P. 22 and/or Estafa, but they are legally distinct and require different proofs. Prosecutors typically examine:

Was there deceit at the outset?
Did the cooperative part with money/property because of that deceit?
Was the check merely a mode of payment for an existing obligation (often more B.P. 22/civil) or used to trick the cooperative?

5) Who Can Be Accused When the Victim is a Cooperative?

A cooperative usually cannot send itself to jail; criminal liability is personal. So the accused is generally:

officers (Treasurer, General Manager, Bookkeeper, etc.),
employees (cashiers, collectors),
members/borrowers,
third parties (vendors, fraudsters, fixers).

Corporate/collective decision issues

If the act was done through Board action or committee action, liability depends on personal participation:

Who signed?
Who handled or withdrew funds?
Who benefited?
Who authorized irregular disbursement knowing it was unlawful?

Criminal cases require showing individual acts and intent; “the board did it” is not enough without identifying participation.

6) Authority to File on Behalf of the Cooperative

Because a cooperative is a juridical entity, the complaint should be filed by an authorized natural person. Commonly required attachments include:

Secretary’s Certificate / Board Resolution authorizing:
- filing of criminal complaint,
- naming the representative,
- appointing counsel (optional but helpful).
Cooperative registration documents (often used to show legal personality).
IDs/position documents of the representative.

Lack of authority can cause delays (prosecutor may require proof), though it can often be cured by submitting the proper board authority.

7) Where and How the Cooperative Files: Procedure Overview

Step 1: Prepare a Complaint-Affidavit

Usually filed with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (or their satellite office) where:

the offense was committed, or
any essential element occurred (e.g., where funds were received, where deceit was committed, where demand/refusal happened, depending on facts).

Attach supporting affidavits and documents.

Step 2: Preliminary Investigation

For offenses requiring it (most estafa cases do), the prosecutor conducts preliminary investigation:

Complaint-affidavit + evidence submitted.
Respondent files counter-affidavit.
Possible clarificatory hearing.
Prosecutor determines probable cause.

Step 3: Filing in Court

If probable cause is found, an Information is filed in court (usually MeTC/MTC or RTC depending on penalty/amount and the specific charge).

Court issues warrant or summons depending on rules and prosecutor/court evaluation.

Step 4: Trial

The cooperative appears as the private complainant and proves:

elements of estafa,
identity and participation of accused,
damage and civil liability.

8) Katarungang Pambarangay (Barangay Conciliation): Is It Required?

Often not, for at least two common reasons in cooperative estafa scenarios:

The complainant is a juridical entity (cooperative), and barangay conciliation generally targets disputes between individuals residing in the same city/municipality.
Estafa commonly carries penalties that make it fall under exceptions, and criminal cases of this nature are typically filed directly for prosecution.

Still, practice can vary by locality and facts, but most cooperative estafa complaints proceed through the prosecutor without barangay mediation.

9) The Role of “Demand” in Misappropriation Cases

In many cooperative cases under Article 315(1)(b), a demand letter is a key piece of evidence showing:

the cooperative required the accused to return or account,
the accused refused, failed, or ignored—supporting inference of conversion.

Best practice for cooperatives

Issue a written demand stating the amount/property, basis of accountability, deadline to return/account.
Serve with proof (personal service with acknowledgment, registered mail/courier with tracking, or other reliable proof).
Keep audit trail and board findings, if applicable.

10) Amounts, Penalties, and Why They Matter

Estafa penalties under Article 315 vary widely based on:

the mode (misappropriation vs deceit),
the amount of damage,
sometimes the presence of abuse of confidence or other circumstances.

Penalties affect:

whether the case is filed in MTC/MeTC vs RTC,
bail considerations,
settlement dynamics,
prescription computation (see below).

Because penalty computation can be technical, cooperatives usually benefit from counsel when evaluating exact exposure and venue.

11) Prescription (Time Limits)

Criminal actions prescribe (must be filed within a certain period), and the prescriptive period depends on:

the penalty attached to the offense,
the specific mode and amount.

For cooperatives, the safe operational approach is:

act early once anomalies are discovered,
document discovery date, audit dates, and demand dates,
consult counsel on prescription risk.

12) Civil Liability and Recovery (What the Cooperative Can Get Back)

In estafa, the accused may be ordered to:

return the money/property (restitution),
pay the value of the loss,
pay damages where proper.

The cooperative can pursue recovery through:

the civil aspect impliedly instituted with the criminal case (common),
or separate civil actions where appropriate (subject to rules and strategy).

Important practical point: A criminal conviction helps, but it doesn’t automatically guarantee actual collection if the accused has no assets. Early asset tracing and lawful protective measures (when available) can matter.

13) Internal Cooperative Governance: Do You Need to Exhaust Internal Remedies?

For criminal fraud (estafa), internal cooperative remedies do not bar filing a criminal complaint. However, good governance helps the case:

audit and inventory,
clear accountability procedures,
documented turn-overs,
board actions memorialized in minutes,
prompt reporting.

Internal administrative action (e.g., termination, suspension, expulsion of member) can happen alongside the criminal process, but each has its own standards and due process.

14) Practical Drafting Checklist for a Cooperative Estafa Complaint

A. Identity and authority

Board Resolution / Secretary’s Certificate
Proof of cooperative registration (if requested)
IDs of the authorized representative

B. Fact narration (chronology)

How the accused gained access/entrustment or made misrepresentations
Dates, amounts, transaction references
When loss was discovered (audit, reconciliation)
Demand and response (or refusal)

C. Evidence bundle

Receipts, ledgers, vouchers, passbooks
Audit report and annexes
Accountability forms, remittance reports
Bank deposit slips, withdrawal records (if lawfully obtained)
Communications (texts/emails) with proper authentication
Witness affidavits (cashier supervisor, auditor, members who paid, etc.)

D. Clear theory of the case

For 315(1)(b): entrustment → obligation to account → conversion → damage (+ demand)
For 315(2)(a): deceit before delivery → reliance → delivery → damage

15) Common Weaknesses That Sink Cooperative Estafa Cases

No proof of entrustment or duty to return/account (for 315(1)(b)).
Poor paper trail: missing receipts, unclear ledger entries, undocumented cash handling.
Theory mismatch: facts show mere nonpayment of debt (often civil), but complaint alleges deceit without proof.
Demand not documented (in misappropriation cases).
Blaming a position, not a person: failure to show the accused’s personal participation.
Relying solely on audit conclusions without underlying documents and witnesses.

16) Bottom Line

A cooperative can file a criminal complaint for estafa as the offended party.
Most cooperative fraud cases are prosecuted under Article 315 (estafa), while Article 314 is a different fraud provision and is less commonly the correct charging anchor for typical cooperative losses.
Success depends on matching the facts to the correct mode of estafa and presenting strong evidence of entrustment or deceit, damage, and personal participation of the accused.
Procedurally, the cooperative files through an authorized representative with supporting board authority, and the case usually starts at the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation.

If you want, paste a short anonymized fact pattern (e.g., “collector did X, amount Y, dates Z”), and I’ll map it to the most likely estafa mode (misappropriation vs deceit), the key elements you’d need to prove, and the document set you should assemble.