CORPORATE FRAUD INVOLVING ₱100,000: CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Abstract

The article maps the entire Philippine criminal-law landscape that can be triggered when a corporation, its directors, officers, or employees commit a fraudulent act causing or involving damage of approximately ₱100,000. It covers (1) the statutory bases, (2) how the ₱100 k figure affects penalties and court jurisdiction, (3) the criminal liability of the corporation vis-à-vis natural-person insiders, (4) procedural, evidentiary and prescriptive considerations, and (5) related civil, administrative and governance exposure. Citations are to the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), the Revised Corporation Code (RCC, R.A. 11232), the Securities Regulation Code (SRC, R.A. 8799), and other special penal laws current as of 15 May 2025.

1. What is “corporate fraud” under Philippine law?

Concept. Philippine statutes do not define a stand-alone crime called corporate fraud. The term is used by regulators as an umbrella for acts such as misappropriation of corporate funds, falsification of books, market manipulation, insider dealing, procurement-related kickbacks, and concealment of material facts in reports or prospectuses. Legal anchoring. The specific offences are found in (a) the RPC (estafa, qualified theft, falsification, swindling), (b) special penal laws (SRC for securities fraud, BSP regulations for bank-related fraud, AMLA for laundering the proceeds, etc.), and (c) the RCC, which punishes certain fraudulent acts with fines and possible dissolution.

2. Why focus on ₱100,000? ― The penalty brackets after R.A. 10951

R.A. 10951 re-calibrated the monetary thresholds originally set in the 1930 RPC. For most property crimes ₱100 k now sits squarely in the 40 k – 200 k bracket. This bracket matters because:

Offence (RPC)	Amount = ₱100 k	Statutory Penalty (post-10951)	Typical Court
Estafa (Art. 315)	Damage > ₱40 k but ≤ ₱200 k	*Arresto mayor maximum* (4 mo 1 d – 6 mo) to Prisión correccional minimum (6 mo 1 d – 2 yr 4 mo)**; plus incremental penalty (none below ₱200 k)	Metropolitan / Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
Qualified Theft (Art. 310), using same value rule	Base penalty for theft plus 2 degrees → Prisión mayor minimum to Prisión mayor medium (6 yr 1 d – 10 yr inclusive)	Regional Trial Court (RTC) because max > 6 yr
Falsification (Art. 171/172) with intent to cause ₱100 k damage	Prisión correccional medium & maximum (2 yr 4 mo 1 d – 6 yr)	MTC

Key take-aways:

The amount dictates the presiding court—below six-year maximum = MTC; above = RTC.
An information may charge multiple acts (estafa + falsification) but the amount drives only the estafa penalty; falsification remains malum prohibitum and hinges on document type, not amount.

3. Who can be held criminally liable?

Actor	Potential Liability	Notes
Corporation (juridical person)	Fines, forfeiture, dissolution, disgorgement	Allowed under many special laws (e.g., SRC §73, AMLA §14, RCC §170). The RPC itself imposes no imprisonment on corporations but allows subsidiary fines (Art. 71).
Directors & Trustees	Principal or accomplice under RPC; officer penalties under RCC §161	Responsible officers doctrine: liability attaches if they consented to, or through gross negligence allowed, the fraud.
Corporate Officers (CEO, CFO, Treasurer, etc.)	Same as above; plus permanent disqualification by SEC/BSP	The “controlling-officer” tag in SRC means they may be charged even if not signatories, once knowledge is shown.
Rank-and-file Employees	Theft, falsification, computer-related fraud (Cybercrime Act)	If fraud is committed through computers, penalties are one degree higher (R.A. 10175).
Third-party Advisers (auditors, consultants)	Estafa by abuse of confidence, falsification of commercial documents	Recent jurisprudence treats colluding external auditors as principals.

4. Core crimes typically charged in a ₱100 k corporate-fraud scenario

Estafa (Swindling) – Art. 315 (1)(b) & (2)(a) Elements:
- (a) Entrustment of money or property, OR deceit through false pretence;
- (b) Abuse of confidence or fraudulent means;
- (c) Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation (₱100 k in our case).
Qualified Theft – Art. 310 in relation to Art. 308 Qualifying circumstances (any one): committed by a domestic servant, with grave abuse of confidence, or involves vehicles/firearms, etc. Adding 2 degrees makes even a ₱100 k loss carry a 6 yr 1 d – 10 yr penalty.
Falsification of Commercial Documents – Art. 172 (1) Often paired with estafa when accounting books, checks or receipts are manipulated to hide the missing ₱100 k.
SRC-Type Fraud (Market Manipulation, Insider Trading, Fraudulent Prospectus) Even if the public loss is only ₱100 k, SRC §73 already provides: Imprisonment: 7 yr to 21 yr Fine: not < ₱50 k nor > ₱5 M, or triple the profit, whichever is higher. → Thus amount is irrelevant to liability; the Php 100 k figure may only matter for restitution.
B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks) – if the ₱100 k loss arose from non-funded corporate checks.
Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. 9160, as amended) – laundering the ₱100 k proceeds is an independent felony once the predicate fraud exceeds ₱500 k in one transaction (our scenario usually below that threshold, but possible if several 100 k acts are aggregated).

5. Criminal procedure step-by-step for a ₱100 k fraud

Initiation – Complaint-Affidavit with Department of Justice (DOJ) or Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
Pre-Investigation – Clarificatory hearings; determination of probable cause.
Information filed – To the proper trial court (MTC if estafa penalty ≤ 6 yr; RTC if qualified theft or SRC charges).
Arraignment & Bail – For estafa ≤ ₱100 k, bail is generally a matter of right; for SRC offences, still bailable but amount is higher.
Trial – Presentation of documentary and testimonial evidence; forensic audit evidence is common.
Judgment – Possible conviction of both the corporation (fine) and its officers (imprisonment + fine).
Civil Liability – Automatically adjudged in the criminal case (RPC Art. 100). The guilty parties, solidarily with the corporation, must return the ₱100 k plus interest.
Appeal – MTC decisions appeal to RTC; RTC decisions to Court of Appeals; SRC and AMLA cases go straight Court of Appeals → Supreme Court.

6. Prescription of the offence

Estafa / Falsification (₱100 k): penalty ≤ 6 yr → prescriptive period 10 years (Art. 90 RPC as revised).
Qualified Theft: penalty may exceed 6 yr → 15 years.
SRC violations: 12 years from commission or discovery, whichever is later (SRC §65.2).
Interruption occurs upon filing of complaint-affidavit.

7. Corporate-governance & administrative overlay

SEC Actions – The Securities and Exchange Commission may impose separate fines (₱20 k – ₱2 M per day of violation) and perpetual disqualification of directors.
BSP (Bangko Sentral) Sanctions – For banks and quasi-banks: fines, suspension of officers, prompt corrective action.
Tax Fraud Exposure – BIR assessments for undeclared income or VAT; criminal tax charges under NIRC §255, §256.
Listed Companies – Disclosure failures involving ₱100 k are material if they affect aggregate financial figures or governance metrics; SEC may require restatement and investor notice.

8. Compliance and risk-mitigation checklist for corporations

Layer	Key Controls	Particular to the ₱100 k threshold
Preventive	Segregation of duties; maker-checker for payments; mandatory leave policy; continuous audit	Tighten controls on transactions below board-approval cap (often ₱100 k/₱200 k) – typical blind spot exploited in fraud
Detective	Surprise cash counts; analytical review of turnover vs. collections; whistle-blower hotlines	Configure anomaly-detection rules to flag multiple sub-₱100 k transactions
Corrective	Claw-back clauses; insurance (Commercial Crime Policy); restitution plans	Maintain evidence chain to support future DOJ filing if loss hits ≥ ₱40 k (criminal threshold)
Governance	Board-level Risk Committee; annual fraud-risk assessment; Code of Conduct certification	Ensure directors understand personal liability under RCC §161

9. Practical litigation tips (for counsel)

Charge-stacking: If the same ₱100 k shortage is proven by falsified documents, plead estafa thru falsification to cover both arts. 315 and 172; courts convict on whichever is proven.
Incremental Penalties: For estafa amounts > ₱22 k, add 1 year for every additional ₱10 k but total penalty cannot exceed 20 years (Art. 315 as modified). ₱100 k adds 7.8 years to the base—but since the base here is only arresto mayor max to prision correccional min (max = 2 yr 4 mo), the total cannot exceed 8 yr 4 mo. Thus, although amount seems modest, imprisonment can still breach MTC’s 6-year ceiling, sending the case to RTC—strategically crucial.
Restitution as Mitigating Circumstance: Full payment of ₱100 k before judgment is voluntary surrender (Art. 13(7)) and may lower the imposable penalty by one degree.

10. Concluding synthesis

Even a ₱100,000 misappropriation inside a Philippine company can generate multi-layered criminal exposure:

Natural persons face estafa or qualified theft penalties that may escalate beyond six years, especially when qualified or computer-facilitated.
The corporation itself is far from immune; the RCC, SRC, AMLA and sectoral charters now impose hefty fines, revocation of licence, or dissolution in egregious cases.
The ₱100 k figure is pivotal for (1) pegging the RPC penalty, (2) determining trial-court level, (3) configuring incremental estafa penalties, and (4) triggering procedural strategies such as plea-bargaining or restitution.

The modern compliance environment (governance codes, SEC audit requirements, ISO 37001, etc.) insists that boards treat sub-₱200 k transactions with the same rigor applied to million-peso deals, precisely because bad actors exploit those thresholds. Thus, corporate governance and criminal-law literacy must meet at the ₱100 k cross-road if Philippine corporations hope to stay on the right side of both regulators and the penal code.

This article reflects Philippine legislation and jurisprudence up to 15 May 2025 and is intended for general information only. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice.