Prosecuting a Minor for Large-Scale Online Scams in the Philippines: A Comprehensive Legal Primer (June 2025)

1 | Context and Importance

Online scams now rank among the fastest-growing profit-motivated crimes investigated by the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) and the National Bureau of Investigation Cybercrime Division (NBI-CCD). Syndicates have begun recruiting teenagers—sometimes coercively, sometimes through promises of easy money—as “money-mule” account holders, fake-seller operators, or social-engineering callers. When the perpetrator is a child in conflict with the law (CICL), two distinct legal regimes collide: Philippine cyber-fraud laws (which can impose very heavy penalties for “large-scale” or syndicated swindling) and the protective Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA), which prioritises diversion, proportionality, and rehabilitation.

2 | What Constitutes an “Online Scam”

Possible scam modality	Core offense under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or special law	Cybercrime “tag-on”
Fake online selling / marketplace fraud	Estafa (Art. 315 ¶2[a])	§6, R.A. 10175 (penalty × 1 degree)
Credit-card/GCash phishing	R.A. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act)	§6, R.A. 10175
Investment or romance scam	Syndicated and/or large-scale estafa (last ¶, Art. 315)	§6, R.A. 10175
Money-mule account renting	New R.A. 11976 (Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act, 2024)	Built-in online element

“Large-scale” is not formally defined in the JJWA. Practitioners follow the thresholds in the predicate crime—e.g., ₱10 million or more for large-scale estafa, or any amount when five or more persons form a conspiracy (syndicated estafa). When committed through ICT, §6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) applies, automatically raising the penalty one degree higher than that set in the underlying statute.

3 | Age of Criminal Responsibility and the Concept of “Discernment”

Age at time of commission	Criminal liability?	Key consequence
Below 15	Absolutely exempt (Art. 12 ¶3, RPC; §6, R.A. 9344)	Child is released to parents/DSWD; subjected only to an intervention program.
15 – < 18, WITHOUT discernment	Exempt; same rule as below 15	Diversion or intervention; no court trial.
15 – < 18, WITH discernment	Criminally liable but subject to JJWA benefits	Case filed in the Family Court; potential diversion for non-serious offenses; rehabilitative penalties.
18 and above	Full adult liability	Regular criminal procedure.

Discernment is a factual question. Prosecutors look at:

✓ Deliberate planning or scripting of the deception
✓ Use of multiple accounts, SIMs, “drop” wallets
✓ Efforts to cover digital footprints (VPN, dummy e-mails)
✓ Admission of knowledge of wrongfulness in chat logs or custodial interviews

A teenager who methodically executes a phishing tree using online toolkits typically meets the discernment threshold.

4 | Procedural Track from Arrest to Disposition

Custodial Protection upon Apprehension
- Police must immediately turn the minor over to the Women and Children Protection Desk (WCPD) or the nearest Bahay Pag-Asa within 8 hours (§20, R.A. 9344).
- Physical detention in a police jail is prohibited except for extreme necessity and never beyond 8 hours.
Initial Assessment (DSWD or LGU Social Worker)
- Determines age, establishes identity, screens for diversion eligibility.
- Recommends either (a) intervention, (b) diversion, or (c) referral for inquest if the offense is serious, large-scale, or violent.
Inquest / Prosecutorial Determination
- Family Court has exclusive original jurisdiction (R.A. 8369).
- If value exceeds the “large-scale” threshold or cybercrime is alleged, the inquest prosecutor typically files:
  - Estafa under Art. 315 in relation to §6, R.A. 10175 and/or
  - Violations of R.A. 8484 or R.A. 11976.
- Syndicated estafa (five or more conspirators) is non-bailable even for minors, but the JJWA allows release to parents or DSWD custody in lieu of bail (§34).
Diversion Proceedings (for 15-17 w/ discernment, non-serious cases)
- Not available if:
  - the fraud exceeds ₱200,000 (typical Family Court practice),
  - the act is syndicated or large-scale,
  - the minor has prior adjudications.
- Diversion contract may require full restitution to victims, community service, counselling, and digital-ethics modules.
Trial (Closed-Door Family Court)
- Evidence rules coincide with the 2018 Rules on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. 17-11-03-SC) for digital evidence.
- Media blackout; records are confidential (§19, R.A. 9344).
- Parents or guardians are compulsory parties.
Disposition and Sentencing
- Suspended sentence is mandatory for minors who are found guilty (§38, R.A. 9344) unless they ask otherwise or have reached 18 + 1 year.
- Instead of imprisonment, the court imposes a court-monitored rehabilitation plan (education, mental-health services, tech-skills redirection).
- Upon successful completion, the conviction may be expunged from all records (§40).

5 | Civil and Administrative Liability

Parents, guardians, and teachers may be subsidiarily liable for damages under Art. 2180, Civil Code if negligence in supervision is proven.
The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) may freeze assets (bank/e-wallet balances, crypto) proven to be proceeds of large-scale online fraud, regardless of the minor’s age, under R.A. 9160 §10.
Violations of the Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173) can result where personal data are harvested and misused; administrative fines can be pursued separately against the minor’s parents or business facilitators.

6 | Emerging Statutes and Jurisprudence to Watch

Instrument	Key relevance to minors in online scams
R.A. 11976 (Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act, 2024)	Criminalises sale or lending of bank/e-wallet accounts; imposes up to 12 years + ₱2 million fine; no explicit JJWA carve-out, so Family Courts are testing how diversion applies.
A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law)	Authorises virtual hearings and remote testimony for child-witnesses in cyber-cases.
People v. AAA (G.R. 259984, 2023)	Supreme Court upheld Family Court jurisdiction over a 17-year-old charged with large-scale estafa via Facebook Marketplace, ruling that JJWA procedures prevail even when §6 of R.A. 10175 elevates the penalty.
AMLC v. XYZ e-Wallet (AMLC Resolution 48-2024)	Clarifies that AMLC freeze orders may extend to parent-controlled custodial accounts used in scams perpetrated by their children.

7 | Cross-Border and Trafficking Angle

ASEAN law-enforcement reports show Filipino minors trafficked to scam “boiler rooms” in Cambodia or Myanmar. If recruitment occurs in the Philippines, recruiters may face:

R.A. 9208 as amended (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act)—penalty: reclusion perpetua + ₱2 million fine.
Qualified trafficking if the child is exploited to commit cyber-fraud abroad; venue lies where the recruitment happened.

8 | Policy and Practice Recommendations

Age-sensitive digital forensics: Minors’ devices often mingle school and scam data; investigators must minimise over-collection to comply with privacy principles.
Mandatory fintech “know-your-parent” checks: Link minor-opened e-wallets to guardian IDs to reduce mule accounts.
Scam-literacy modules in DepEd’s K-12 curriculum: Focus on social-engineering awareness and the criminal risks of money-mule work.
Strengthen Bahay Pag-Asa tech-rehabilitation tracks: Coding bootcamps that redirect talent toward legitimate cybersecurity careers.

9 | Conclusion

The Philippine framework seeks a delicate equilibrium: it treats large-scale online scamming as an economic menace deserving stern penalties, yet it insists that children—even tech-savvy ones running million-peso swindles—remain children first under the law. Prosecutors, judges, and social workers must therefore knit together cybercrime statutes, restorative juvenile principles, and victim-restitution imperatives. Navigating these overlapping regimes is complex, but the jurisprudence to date shows a consistent judicial commitment to two core goals: meaningful rehabilitation of the child and full compensation of defrauded victims.