Introduction

Online scams in the Philippines range from “online selling” fraud and bogus investments to phishing, account takeovers, e-wallet/online banking fraud, and identity theft. When the alleged offender is a minor, Philippine law does not simply “treat them like adults online.” Instead, liability and procedure are governed by a child-protection framework that balances accountability, rehabilitation, and victims’ rights—principally under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act and related criminal and cybercrime statutes.

This article explains how Philippine law evaluates (1) whether a minor can be held criminally liable for an online scam, (2) what charges may apply, (3) how cybercrime rules affect penalties and procedure, and (4) what special protections and outcomes apply to children in conflict with the law.

Core Legal Framework

1) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA): RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630

This is the main law for minors who allegedly commit crimes (including online scams). It defines:

Minimum age of criminal responsibility
The concept of discernment
Diversion and intervention programs
Special rules for arrest, custody, detention, trial, and disposition
Confidentiality of records and child-sensitive procedures

2) Revised Penal Code (RPC)

Most “scam” cases still rely on traditional crimes, especially:

Estafa (Swindling) (common for online selling/investment scams)
Falsification/forgery (fake IDs, receipts, documents)
Theft/robbery (where applicable)
Libel, threats, coercion (sometimes in extortion-type online schemes)

3) Cybercrime Prevention Act: RA 10175

RA 10175 covers crimes committed “through and with the use of” information and communications technologies (ICT). For online scams, the most relevant are typically:

Computer-related fraud
Computer-related identity theft
Related illegal acts (e.g., illegal access, data interference), depending on the modus operandi

Important cybercrime consequence: when an offense is committed via ICT and falls under RA 10175, the penalty is generally one degree higher than its non-cyber counterpart. That matters a lot for minors because diversion eligibility and case handling often depend on the imposable penalty.

4) Other statutes sometimes used in scam cases

Depending on facts, prosecutors may consider:

Access Devices Regulation Act (RA 8484) for credit/debit card–related fraud and misuse
E-Commerce Act (RA 8792) (e.g., evidentiary recognition of electronic data/messages; some offenses)
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) if the scam involved unauthorized processing/obtaining personal data (often alongside other charges)

Age Brackets: Who Can Be Criminally Liable?

A. Below 15 years old

A child below 15 is exempt from criminal liability.

What happens instead:

The child is referred to intervention programs (typically with DSWD/LGU social welfare involvement).
The goal is rehabilitation and addressing risk factors (family situation, schooling, environment, possible exploitation by adults).

Key point: “Exempt from criminal liability” does not automatically erase the harm. Victims may still pursue civil remedies (e.g., restitution/damages), and the child may be required to participate in interventions.

B. 15 years old up to below 18 years old

A child 15 to below 18 is also exempt from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment.

What is “discernment”?

Discernment is the child’s capacity to understand:

the wrongfulness of the act, and
the consequences of committing it.

In practice, discernment is assessed using circumstances such as:

how the scam was planned and executed (sophistication, concealment, repeated acts)
behavior before/during/after the act (e.g., evasion, deletion of evidence, using mule accounts)
age, education, maturity, family environment
findings in social case studies and other child-sensitive evaluations

If no discernment is found → the child remains exempt, and interventions apply.

If discernment is found → the child can be processed as a Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL), but still under a rehabilitative juvenile justice system (not simply adult punishment).

C. What about “turning 18” during the case?

Generally, if the accused was a child at the time of the act, juvenile justice protections and concepts (like discernment and child-sensitive procedures) remain highly relevant. Disposition can still focus on rehabilitation even if the person later becomes an adult, subject to the specific rules of suspended sentence, age limits, and program completion.

What Crimes Do “Online Scams” Usually Become in Court?

Online scams are not a single crime. Prosecutors match the conduct to elements of offenses. Common charge pathways include:

1) Estafa (Swindling) (RPC)

Often used for:

online selling scams (payment received, item never delivered)
fake investment schemes
bogus services or reservations

Typical theory:

deceit or abuse of confidence
damage to the victim
causal link between deceit and damage

Evidence often used: chat messages, transaction receipts, delivery logs, account details, witness testimony, and device data.

2) Computer-Related Fraud (RA 10175)

Often used when the fraud is executed through:

manipulation of data, systems, or online platforms
use of compromised accounts
deception using ICT as the core means

This can overlap with estafa; charging decisions vary based on how “cyber” the fraudulent mechanism is.

3) Computer-Related Identity Theft (RA 10175)

Relevant when the minor:

uses another person’s identity, credentials, photos, SIM, or account
creates fake profiles using real persons’ data
impersonates victims to solicit money

4) Access Device / E-wallet / Card-related offenses (RA 8484 and/or RA 10175)

Applicable if the scheme involves:

unauthorized use of credit/debit card numbers
misuse of access devices or credentials
card-not-present fraud scenarios (often paired with cybercrime provisions)

5) Falsification / Forgery (RPC)

Used when minors submit:

fake IDs
fake receipts and proof of payment
counterfeit documents to deceive victims or platforms

6) Other related offenses

Depending on the scam:

Illegal access / hacking-related acts (RA 10175)
Extortion / threats / coercion where the scam is “sextortion” or intimidation-based (handled carefully; facts matter)
Money laundering theories usually target adults/syndicates, but victims’ funds tracing can be part of investigation even if CICL is involved

The Cybercrime “Penalty Uplift” and Why It Matters for Minors

A major practical issue: RA 10175 commonly increases the penalty by one degree when crimes are committed through ICT.

Why that matters in juvenile cases:

Diversion eligibility often depends on the imposable penalty of the offense charged.
A case that might otherwise be diversion-eligible under a lower penalty can become non-diversion once charged as a cybercrime or with cyber-related penalty elevation.
This affects not only the child’s pathway but also victims’ expectations and case timelines.

Special Rules When the Suspect Is a Minor (CICL Protections)

Philippine juvenile justice follows child-sensitive handling. While exact steps vary, the system generally emphasizes:

1) Handling at first contact (police/barangay)

Core themes:

Child-friendly procedures
Immediate involvement of parents/guardians and social workers where required
Protection against coercive questioning
Respect for privacy and confidentiality

2) Diversion (when applicable)

Diversion means resolving the case without formal court proceedings through agreements and programs that can include:

restitution or return of property (when feasible)
apology/acknowledgment
counseling, skills training, community service
education-focused interventions

Diversion is designed to:

prevent unnecessary criminalization of youth
reduce repeat offending
provide some form of restorative justice to victims

3) If the case proceeds formally (with discernment)

Even when a child is processed, the approach remains rehabilitative:

Suspended sentence mechanisms exist for minors
Commitment to rehabilitation programs may be ordered instead of imprisonment in regular facilities
Placement is supposed to be youth-appropriate (e.g., youth care facilities), not adult jails, except under narrowly defined and regulated exceptions

4) Confidentiality of records

CICL cases are generally treated with confidentiality:

Restricted access to records
Limits on media exposure and publication of identifying information
Sealing/expungement concepts exist to reduce lifelong stigma, especially for diverted cases

Civil Liability: Even If a Child Is Exempt, Victims May Still Seek Recovery

Criminal exemption is not the same as “no consequences.”

1) Restitution and damages

Victims may pursue:

return of money/property
damages (depending on proof and legal basis) Often, diversion agreements also include restorative components.

2) Possible liability of parents/guardians

Under civil law principles (notably on parental responsibility and vicarious liability), parents/guardians can face civil exposure in appropriate circumstances—especially where negligence in supervision is alleged. Outcomes depend heavily on facts.

When Adults Use Minors as “Runners,” “Mules,” or Fronts

Online scam operations sometimes recruit minors to:

open or “rent out” e-wallet accounts
register SIMs/accounts
act as intermediaries for cash-outs
serve as the visible face while adults control the scheme

Philippine juvenile justice policy treats this seriously:

The child may be treated as a CICL (or exempt + intervention), but
Adults who exploit children for criminal activities can face separate criminal exposure.
This fact pattern also influences assessments of the child’s environment, coercion, and rehabilitation needs.

Digital Evidence and Cybercrime Procedure (High-Level)

Online scam cases rely heavily on electronic evidence, which commonly includes:

chat logs and emails
platform data (account details, IP logs where obtainable)
e-wallet transaction trails
device contents (screenshots, browser history, authentication tokens)
subscriber/account registration information

Law enforcement access to certain computer data typically requires adherence to cybercrime-specific rules and lawful process. For minors, any extraction/interrogation should also observe juvenile safeguards.

Typical Scenarios and How the Law Often Treats Them

Scenario 1: Minor runs an “online selling” scam

Likely charges: Estafa; possibly cyber-related framing depending on facts
Key issues: repeated transactions, use of false identity, intent to defraud
For age 15–<18: data-preserve-html-node="true" discernment is the hinge; diversion may be explored depending on imposable penalty and circumstances

Scenario 2: Minor phishes accounts and steals funds

Likely charges: Computer-related fraud, identity theft, possibly illegal access
Cybercrime penalty effects may increase seriousness
Diversion becomes harder if imposable penalties rise

Scenario 3: Minor is just an account “mule” for adults

Legal focus expands to exploitation by adults
The child may be treated as needing protection/intervention, even if some participation occurred
Adults may be targeted for recruitment/exploitation offenses and principal scam offenses

Practical Notes for Stakeholders (Victims, Families, Schools)

For victims

Expect the process to weigh both accountability and the child’s rehabilitation.
Restitution is often pursued through diversion/restorative mechanisms, but recovery is not guaranteed.
Keep all digital evidence in original form when possible (screenshots plus message links/metadata, transaction references).

For families of the child

The presence of a minor triggers special procedures; compliance with social welfare processes is crucial.
If adults are involved, disclose exploitation/coercion concerns early so they can be evaluated appropriately.

For schools and communities

Online scam involvement by minors often correlates with financial pressure, peer influence, and online grooming by syndicates—interventions often focus on education, supervision, and digital literacy.

Conclusion

Under Philippine law, minors involved in online scams are not automatically treated like adult cybercriminals. The decisive legal questions are age and (for ages 15 to below 18) discernment, with the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act shaping procedure and outcomes toward rehabilitation and restorative measures. At the same time, online scams frequently trigger estafa and cybercrime charges, and cybercrime penalty adjustments can affect whether diversion is possible.

If you’re dealing with an actual case—whether as a victim, a parent/guardian, or a youth respondent—consult a qualified lawyer or seek assistance from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) or local social welfare offices, because outcomes turn on specific facts (age, discernment indicators, role in the scheme, amount involved, and evidence quality).