Diversion, Parents’ Responsibility, and Remedies

1) Why this topic matters

Online fraud—Facebook Marketplace “bogus seller” schemes, phishing links, fake investment groups, account takeovers, e-wallet “cash-in/cash-out” tricks, and “money mule” arrangements—has become a common entry point to crime for young people. Minors can be offenders, facilitators, or exploited instruments of adult syndicates. Philippine law treats children in conflict with the law (CICL) differently from adults: the system is designed to prioritize rehabilitation, diversion, and restorative justice, while still recognizing victims’ rights to restitution and legal remedies.

This article explains (1) what crimes online fraud usually falls under, (2) when a minor can be held criminally liable, (3) how diversion works, (4) when and how parents/guardians may be responsible, and (5) practical remedies for victims and families.

2) What “online fraud” usually means in Philippine criminal law

“Online fraud” is not a single crime label; it is typically prosecuted under a combination of:

A. Revised Penal Code (RPC): Estafa (Swindling)

Most “scam” cases where money or property is obtained through deceit are charged as estafa (Article 315, RPC). Common online examples:

Selling non-existent items online; receiving payment; not delivering.
“Reservation fee” scams, fake rentals, fake tickets.
Misrepresenting identity or authority to induce payment.
Using fake proof of payment, fake receipts, edited screenshots to mislead.

Estafa penalties depend heavily on the amount of damage (and were updated by later amendments such as the law adjusting property-value thresholds). This matters because the imposable penalty affects whether diversion is available and at what level.

B. Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175): Computer-related fraud and “one degree higher” penalties

RA 10175 recognizes specific “computer-related” offenses (including computer-related fraud and identity theft) and also provides that when certain crimes (including many RPC offenses) are committed through and with the use of information and communications technologies, the penalty may be one degree higher than what the RPC would impose (subject to legal interpretation and charging decisions).

In practice, prosecutors often pair:

Estafa (RPC) + “cyber-related” allegations (RA 10175), or
Computer-related fraud (RA 10175) where the act squarely fits that definition, or
Identity theft (RA 10175) if a child used another person’s name, photos, credentials, SIM/e-wallet accounts, etc.

C. Other statutes that can attach depending on the scheme

Depending on the facts, online fraud can also involve:

Access Devices Regulation Act (RA 8484) (credit card and access device fraud-related acts).
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) where personal data is unlawfully obtained/used (often overlaps with phishing/doxxing situations).
Falsification under the RPC (e.g., falsified receipts, forged documents, fabricated IDs).
Libel/cyberlibel issues may arise later when parties publicly accuse each other online.
Money laundering concerns can arise for organized scams, though victims usually interface with banking/e-wallet dispute channels rather than AML prosecutions directly.

3) The controlling framework for minors: Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344, as amended)

The cornerstone is RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630, which established a child-centered justice system grounded in:

Restorative justice
Diversion (avoiding formal court proceedings when appropriate)
Intervention (services for children exempt from criminal liability)
Protection of the child’s rights and privacy
Rehabilitation rather than retribution

Key concepts

Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL): a child alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as having committed an offense.
Intervention: programs/services for children exempt from criminal liability (and often also used as part of diversion).
Diversion: an alternative process that resolves the case without a full criminal trial, using agreements like restitution, counseling, community service, skills training, and other restorative measures.
Discernment: the child’s mental capacity to understand the wrongfulness of the act and its consequences—crucial for ages above the minimum age threshold.

4) When can a minor be criminally liable for online fraud?

Philippine law uses age brackets and discernment:

A. 15 years old and below at the time of the act

Exempt from criminal liability.
The child will not be prosecuted like an adult.
The case should be addressed through intervention (family-based or community-based programs, counseling, education support, etc.).

Important: “Exempt from criminal liability” does not mean “no consequences.” It means consequences are rehabilitative, not penal.

B. Above 15 but below 18, and acted without discernment

Also exempt from criminal liability.
Managed through intervention, not criminal prosecution.

C. Above 15 but below 18, and acted with discernment

The child may be treated as criminally responsible (in the juvenile justice sense).
The child is still entitled to special protections and will typically be considered for diversion at the earliest appropriate stage.
Even when a case proceeds to court, juvenile rules apply (privacy, detention limits, rehabilitation orientation, and the possibility of suspended sentence and disposition measures).

Determining the child’s age

Age must be established by reliable documents (birth certificate is standard). If age is disputed, the system generally errs on protecting the child; procedures exist for age determination.

Determining “discernment”

Discernment is not a buzzword; it can decide whether the child is prosecuted or diverted/intervened. It is assessed from facts such as:

Planning and concealment (using fake names/accounts, deleting messages, instructing others not to tell).
Repetition (multiple victims, a pattern of scams).
Sophistication (phishing kits, scripted spiels, layered money-mule chain).
Post-act behavior (flight, intimidation, bargaining, cover-up).

No single factor is conclusive; the assessment should be child-specific and evidence-based.

5) How diversion works in online fraud cases

Diversion is central to Philippine juvenile justice. It aims to:

Make the child accountable in a developmentally appropriate way
Repair harm to victims through restitution and apology
Prevent repeat offending through services and supervision
Avoid the long-term damage of formal prosecution and incarceration

Where diversion can occur

Diversion may be offered at different stages and levels, typically depending on:

the seriousness of the offense and the imposable penalty, and
the stage (barangay/police, prosecutor, or court)

In general terms:

Lower-level offenses (based on imposable penalty) are more likely to be diverted early (community or prosecutor level).
More serious offenses may require court diversion or may proceed with formal proceedings but still with juvenile disposition measures.

Because online fraud often involves money amounts (affecting estafa penalties) and may be charged as cyber-related (sometimes increasing penalty exposure), a child’s eligibility for early diversion can hinge on how the offense is charged and what amount is provable.

Typical diversion outcomes for online fraud

A diversion agreement can include:

Restitution / return of money (full or structured payments)
Return of property or replacement
Written apology or restorative conference (when appropriate and safe)
Counseling (individual/family), mental health support if indicated
Values formation, digital ethics education, skills training
Community service
School reintegration plan and supervised digital use plan
Restrictions on online activity (reasonable, time-bound, rehabilitative)
Parental/guardian undertakings (supervision, attendance in seminars, compliance monitoring)

If the child successfully completes diversion, the case does not proceed as a full-blown criminal trial.

What victims should know about diversion

Diversion is not a “free pass.” It is often the most practical route to:

recover money faster than a full trial,
secure a written, monitored commitment,
stop further victimization by addressing root causes early.

Victims can (and should) insist that the diversion plan contain clear restitution terms, deadlines, and consequences for non-compliance.

6) If diversion fails or is not available: what happens in court?

If the case proceeds:

It is handled under juvenile procedures (often through designated family courts).
The child’s identity is protected; records are confidential; “labeling and shaming” are discouraged and can be legally risky.
Detention rules are stricter than for adults: children should not be jailed with adult detainees, and alternatives like youth facilities and recognizance are emphasized.

Disposition and suspended sentence (juvenile-specific outcomes)

Even when a child is adjudged responsible, the system emphasizes:

Suspended sentence (subject to legal requirements)
Commitment to rehabilitation programs or youth care facilities when necessary
Reintegration planning

Online fraud cases often lend themselves to rehabilitation-plus-restitution dispositions, unless the facts show organized criminal exploitation, repeat offending, or serious aggravating circumstances.

7) Parents’ responsibility: what parents are (and are not) liable for

This is the most misunderstood part.

A. Parents are not automatically criminally liable for a child’s crimes

Philippine criminal liability is generally personal. A parent does not become a criminal just because their child scammed someone online.

However, parents can be criminally liable if they:

Participated (co-principal, accomplice, accessory), e.g., helped withdraw funds, provided accounts knowingly, coached the scam, threatened victims, hid evidence.
Used or exploited the child to commit crimes—an especially serious scenario that can trigger additional child-protection liabilities.

B. Parents can be civilly liable for damages caused by their minor child

Under civil law principles (notably the Civil Code on vicarious liability), parents can be held responsible for the acts of their minor children under their authority and supervision, subject to defenses like having exercised the diligence of a good parent.

Practically, in scam cases:

Victims frequently pursue recovery against parents/guardians because minors often have no assets.
Parents may also be expected to help implement restitution through diversion agreements.

C. Parents have duties under the juvenile justice process

RA 9344 expects parental/guardian involvement:

Taking custody (when appropriate)
Cooperating with the child’s intervention/diversion plan
Participating in counseling, seminars, and monitoring
Helping ensure the child attends school and programs and avoids reoffending

Failure to cooperate can complicate outcomes and may lead authorities to consider more structured interventions.

D. When “parents’ responsibility” becomes the bigger story: recruitment and exploitation

Many “teen scammers” are not masterminds; they are sometimes:

coerced by older peers,
recruited as money mules (using their accounts/SIMs),
manipulated through online groups,
promised commissions for forwarding funds.

Where adults exploit minors:

adults can face full criminal exposure for the fraud scheme, and
child-protection laws may apply in addition to fraud charges.

This is why investigations should look beyond the child and identify recruiters, handlers, and account controllers.

8) Remedies for victims of online fraud when the suspect is a minor

Victims often ask: “Can I still file a case if the scammer is under 18?” Yes—but outcomes differ.

A. Criminal complaint and juvenile processing

Victims may file a complaint for the underlying offense (commonly estafa and/or cyber-related offenses). The juvenile system then determines:

the child’s age,
discernment (if applicable),
suitability for diversion/intervention.

Even where the child is exempt from criminal liability, the complaint can still trigger:

referral to social services,
intervention planning,
and efforts to restore losses through restorative processes.

B. Restitution through diversion or restorative conferences

For many victims, the fastest realistic remedy is:

documented settlement terms,
structured repayment schedules,
monitoring through the local social welfare office.

C. Civil actions for recovery

Even if criminal prosecution is unavailable (e.g., child is exempt), victims may still pursue civil remedies, including:

claims grounded in fraud as a civil wrong,
quasi-delict (tort-based recovery),
and vicarious civil liability against parents/guardians when the legal requisites are met.

D. Action against adult participants

If an adult was involved—recruiter, handler, beneficiary—victims should focus on identifying and pursuing the adult(s), who are not protected by juvenile exemptions.

E. Evidence preservation and digital proof (critical in online fraud)

Online fraud cases live or die on evidence quality. The key is to preserve:

chat logs and messages (with timestamps and account identifiers),
proof of payment, transfer reference numbers, receipts,
platform profile URLs/IDs (or screenshots showing unique identifiers),
device/account details where available.

Philippine rules on electronic evidence allow electronic documents, but authenticity and integrity matter; victims should preserve originals where possible and avoid editing screenshots.

F. Avoid “doxxing” and public shaming—especially if a minor is involved

Victims commonly post the alleged scammer’s name, photos, school, and family details. This can backfire:

juvenile law strongly protects the privacy of children in conflict with the law,
public accusations can trigger defamation exposure, and
harassment campaigns can complicate restorative outcomes and legal proceedings.

9) Remedies and protections for the minor (and the minor’s family)

Where a child is accused of online fraud, the law emphasizes safeguards:

A. During arrest, investigation, and questioning

Children should have:

prompt notification of parents/guardians,
access to counsel,
involvement of a social worker,
protection from coercive interrogation,
separation from adult detainees,
privacy protections (no media exposure, no humiliating treatment).

B. During prosecution and court proceedings

The child is entitled to:

confidentiality of records,
child-sensitive procedures,
diversion consideration when appropriate,
rehabilitative disposition measures.

C. After resolution

Juvenile justice policy supports reintegration:

school return plans,
skills training and supervised digital use,
family-based interventions,
sealing/confidential handling of records consistent with law.

10) Special issues unique to “online fraud minors” in the Philippines

A. The “money mule” pattern

A frequent fact pattern is:

child receives funds into an e-wallet/bank account,
cashes out or forwards funds,
claims they were “just asked to help” for a fee.

Legally, this can still create exposure (participation), but it also raises the possibility of exploitation and larger conspiracies. A good juvenile approach distinguishes:

naïve facilitation vs. deliberate fraud participation,
first-time behavior vs. repeated involvement,
coercion/recruitment vs. independent planning.

B. Amount-driven penalty escalation affects diversion

Estafa penalties increase with the amount defrauded; cyber-related charging may also increase penalty exposure. This can move the case from:

early/community diversion territory, to
prosecutor/court handling, or even
formal adjudication with structured rehabilitation.

C. Platform-based identity and SIM/account issues

Fraud investigations often hinge on:

platform account ownership,
SIM registration/KYC records,
transaction logs from e-wallets/banks.

These records are often easier for law enforcement to obtain through proper legal process than for private victims to secure directly.

11) Practical takeaways (policy, not slogans)

A child can be involved in online fraud and still be exempt from criminal liability (age and discernment matter).
Diversion is the default “best fit” tool for many juvenile online fraud cases—especially first-time, low-amount, and non-violent cases—because it targets both restitution and reform.
Parents are usually not criminally liable unless they participated, but they can face civil liability and are expected to cooperate in rehabilitation and restitution.
Victims still have remedies even when the suspect is a minor: diversion-based restitution, civil recovery strategies, and prosecution of adult recruiters/beneficiaries.
Online shaming is legally risky, particularly when the suspect is a minor; it can undermine both recovery and lawful process.

Conclusion

Philippine law treats minors involved in online fraud through a juvenile justice lens: accountability paired with rehabilitation, privacy protections, and a strong preference for diversion and restorative outcomes. At the same time, the legal system preserves victims’ rights through restitution-focused diversion agreements, civil liability principles (including parental vicarious liability in appropriate cases), and the ability to pursue adult co-participants who exploit or direct minors. The most effective outcomes—both for victims and for community safety—typically come from early identification of the child’s age and discernment, prompt engagement of social welfare mechanisms, carefully preserved electronic evidence, and a resolution track that prioritizes repayment and prevention of repeat offending.