A Philippine legal article on substantive, evidentiary, and procedural defenses to estafa (swindling), with practical strategy notes.

1) What “Estafa” Is (Philippine Context)

Estafa is broadly the crime of defrauding another—typically by deceit or by abuse of confidence—resulting in damage or prejudice that is capable of pecuniary estimation. The core provisions are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 315, with related provisions in Articles 316–318 for other frauds and deceit.

Estafa is frequently confused (and often paired) with other offenses such as:

B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) (issuance of a worthless check),
Falsification (when documents are forged/altered to facilitate the fraud),
Syndicated estafa under P.D. 1689 (when committed by a syndicate and involving certain schemes),
Regulatory crimes involving investments/securities that may be prosecuted alongside (depending on facts).

This article focuses on defenses—ways an accused may challenge criminal liability (and, separately, limit or contest civil liability).

2) The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements You Can Attack

Across estafa variants, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Most defenses succeed by showing the State failed to prove at least one essential element.

Common elements you will see (depending on the paragraph charged) include:

A. Deceit or Fraudulent Means (for “estafa by deceit”)

The accused used false pretenses, fraudulent acts, or misrepresentations before or at the time the complainant parted with money/property; and
The complainant relied on the deceit.

B. Abuse of Confidence / Misappropriation (for “estafa by abuse of confidence”)

The accused received money/property in trust, on commission, for administration, or with the obligation to deliver or return; and
The accused misappropriated, converted, or denied receipt; and
The complainant suffered prejudice/damage.

C. Damage / Prejudice

There must be actual damage, loss, or prejudice that is capable of pecuniary estimation. It need not always be fully quantified at filing, but it must be real and provable.

D. Causation and Intent

The fraudulent act must be the reason the victim parted with property or suffered loss; and
Criminal intent is generally inferred from acts, but can be rebutted.

Defense principle: If you can create reasonable doubt as to deceit, entrustment, obligation to return, misappropriation, damage, reliance, timing, or identity, you are attacking the foundation of the charge.

3) Identify the Variant Charged: Article 315’s Practical Grouping

Estafa charges usually fall into one of these practical buckets:

Estafa by abuse of confidence (commonly tied to misappropriation/conversion of something received in trust).
Estafa by deceit (false pretenses / fraudulent means to induce payment or transfer).
Estafa through postdated checks / issuance of checks in certain contexts (often overlaps with B.P. 22, but they are distinct).
Other forms (fraudulent acts in specific transactions, including involving property, obligations, or simulated dealings).

Defenses depend heavily on which paragraph the Information alleges and what facts the prosecution claims.

4) Substantive Defenses (Defenses on the Merits)

4.1. “This Is Civil, Not Criminal” (No Estafa—At Most a Civil Dispute)

One of the most powerful defenses is showing that the facts describe a mere breach of contract or non-performance of a civil obligation, not a crime.

Indicators that the dispute is primarily civil:

The parties’ relationship is contractual (loan, sale, services, agency) without proof of fraud at inception.
The accused had authority to use funds or property in the manner done.
The obligation is simply to pay a debt, not to return the very same thing received or deliver property held in trust.
Failure to pay arose from business reversals, cash-flow issues, or unforeseen events, not deceit or misappropriation.

Key idea: Criminal fraud punishes deceit or breach of trust, not mere inability to pay.

4.2. Lack of Deceit: No Fraudulent Representation (or It Was Not the Cause)

For estafa by deceit, challenge:

No false representation was made, or statements were opinions, sales talk, future projections, or good-faith estimates.
Any representation was not false, or was substantially true.
The representation occurred after the complainant gave money/property (timing matters).
The complainant did not rely on the representation, or reliance was unreasonable (e.g., complainant had independent knowledge, inspected goods, or assumed risk).
The complainant knew the risks and proceeded anyway (e.g., speculative venture disclosed as such).

Good-faith defense: If the accused reasonably believed the statement was true (and had basis), that undercuts fraudulent intent.

4.3. Lack of Entrustment / No Obligation to Return the Same Thing

For estafa by abuse of confidence (misappropriation/conversion), a central element is receipt in trust or with obligation to deliver/return.

Common defenses:

Ownership transferred to the accused (e.g., loan proceeds, sale proceeds, investment contribution), so there was no duty to return the same property or hold it in trust.
The money was given as payment, capital, deposit applied to a purchase, downpayment, advance, or part of a business arrangement where the accused could legally use it.
The relationship was debtor-creditor, not trustee-beneficiary.
The accused received money for a purpose but with discretionary use (depending on contract terms and practice), weakening a “trust” theory.

Practical focus: Produce contracts, receipts, chat threads, emails, vouchers, and witness testimony showing the true nature of the transaction.

4.4. No Misappropriation/Conversion: Funds Used for the Agreed Purpose

Even if the accused received money for a specific purpose, there is no estafa if:

The money/property was used as agreed, or
There is an accounting and the balance (if any) is explainable, or
The accused was ready and willing to deliver/return but was prevented (e.g., complainant refused acceptance, changed terms, failed to comply with their own obligations).

If there is an agency/commission arrangement, demonstrate:

Proper liquidation, remittances, partial deliveries, offsetting expenses, and
That any retained amount corresponds to authorized commissions, reimbursable expenses, or mutual set-offs.

4.5. Absence of Damage or Prejudice (or Damage Not Proved)

Damage is required, but it must be connected to the alleged fraud.

Defenses include:

The complainant suffered no actual loss, or the alleged loss is speculative.
The complainant received the benefit of the bargain (goods delivered, service rendered).
Any “damage” was caused by something else (market changes, third-party default, force majeure).
The amount claimed is inflated or includes unrelated items.

Even where some damage exists, challenging the amount matters for:

Credibility, and
Penalty computations (as penalties often depend on the amount involved).

4.6. Lack of Criminal Intent: Good Faith, Honest Mistake, or Business Reversal

Criminal intent is often inferred, but it can be rebutted.

Good-faith indicators:

Transparent communications (updates, disclosures, willingness to account).
Efforts to perform (partial deliveries, partial payments).
Documented attempts to remedy (refund plans, restructuring proposals).
No concealment, no false identity, no flight, no fabricated receipts.

Important: Subsequent payment/refund does not automatically erase criminal liability if estafa was already complete, but it can strongly support good faith and undermine intent—especially if it shows there was never fraudulent design.

4.7. Identity and Participation: “Wrong Person / No Personal Participation”

Defenses often succeed where:

The accused did not personally transact; a different officer/agent did.
The accused’s name was used, or signature forged.
The accused’s role is nominal; no evidence shows participation in deceit or misappropriation.

For corporate settings:

Corporate officers are not automatically criminally liable for corporate debts; liability typically requires personal participation in the fraudulent acts.

4.8. Authority and Consent: Complainant Authorized the Act

If the complainant:

Authorized the accused to dispose of property,
Agreed to substitutions, delays, or rollovers,
Ratified the transaction after learning the facts,

then the “breach of trust” or “fraud” narrative weakens.

Consent can be shown by:

Written approvals,
Consistent prior practice,
Acceptance of partial performance,
Confirming messages acknowledging the arrangement.

4.9. Novation (Careful, Fact-Specific)

Novation is sometimes raised when the parties execute a new agreement (e.g., restructuring, replacement obligation). As a defense, it is highly fact-dependent:

If the new agreement is executed before criminal liability attaches (and effectively replaces the old obligation), it can support a “purely civil” framing.
If estafa was already complete (deceit/misappropriation + damage), a later restructuring often does not automatically extinguish criminal liability, but may support good faith and affect prosecutorial discretion or settlement dynamics in practice.

4.10. Estafa vs. B.P. 22: Checks as Payment vs. Mere Guarantee

If the case involves checks, you may face:

Estafa allegations relating to the check’s issuance (depending on charging theory), and/or
A separate B.P. 22 complaint.

Key defense angles in check-related estafa theories:

The check was given as a guarantee/collateral, not as consideration inducing the complainant to part with property at the time.
The complainant already delivered goods or advanced money before the check—so the check did not induce the transaction (undercutting deceit).
The accused disclosed funding issues; no misrepresentation.

For B.P. 22, common defense themes (each requires proof):

No receipt of written notice of dishonor (often litigated).
Check was not issued “to apply on account or for value” in the manner alleged (fact-specific).
Signature/issuance not attributable to accused (forgery/unauthorized issuance).
Other statutory and evidentiary issues unique to B.P. 22.

Even when B.P. 22 is separate, the factual overlap matters strategically.

4.11. Syndicated Estafa (P.D. 1689): Attack the “Syndicate” and the Scheme Elements

If the accusation is “syndicated estafa,” the prosecution typically must establish:

A group formed with intent to carry out the fraudulent scheme (not just a regular business team), and
Commission of estafa through the scheme affecting multiple victims or in the manner contemplated by the decree.

Defenses often focus on:

The absence of a true “syndicate” (no formed group for fraud),
Legitimate business operations with documented transactions,
Lack of coordinated intent to defraud.

This classification dramatically affects exposure, so element-by-element challenges are crucial.

5) Evidentiary Defenses (How to Create Reasonable Doubt)

Even when the legal theory is plausible, cases fail on evidence. Common evidentiary defenses:

5.1. Documentary Record Contradicts the Complaint

Use:

Contracts, invoices, delivery receipts, statements of account,
Chat logs, emails, letters showing disclosures and agreements,
Proof of partial delivery, partial payment, liquidation reports.

5.2. Timeline and “Before or At the Time” Requirement

For deceit-based estafa, emphasize:

The alleged misrepresentation occurred after the complainant paid or delivered property.
The complainant’s decision was based on something else.

5.3. Impeach Credibility and Motive

Show inconsistencies:

Different versions in demand letters, affidavits, and testimony,
Amounts changing without explanation,
Evidence of leverage tactics in business disputes.

5.4. Accounting and Traceability

If accused is charged with misappropriation:

Present full accounting,
Show where the funds went (payroll, suppliers, project costs),
Demonstrate the transaction’s nature as business operation rather than trust holding.

5.5. Authentication and Best Evidence Issues

Challenge:

Screenshots without metadata or source device,
Unsigned printouts,
Unauthenticated bank documents,
Questionable “acknowledgment receipts.”

6) Procedural Defenses and Remedies (Pre-Trial to Trial)

Procedural defenses can end the case early, narrow issues, or suppress weak charges.

6.1. Motion to Dismiss / Motion to Quash (Defects on the Information or Grounds Allowed)

Depending on circumstances, you may challenge:

Lack of jurisdiction,
Failure of the Information to allege facts constituting an offense (insufficient allegations),
Prescription (if clearly time-barred),
Duplicity or improper charging (when multiple offenses are improperly joined).

6.2. Lack of Probable Cause

At the prosecutor level and in court (where applicable), attack:

Absence of prima facie showing of deceit/entrustment/misappropriation/damage,
Purely civil nature,
Lack of identification or participation evidence.

6.3. Venue and Jurisdiction (Place Where Filed Matters)

Estafa cases generally require proper filing based on where essential elements occurred (e.g., where deceit was employed or where money/property was delivered/received, depending on theory). If filed in a place with weak connection, venue challenges may apply.

6.4. Inordinate Delay / Violation of the Right to Speedy Disposition / Speedy Trial

If there are unusually long delays in preliminary investigation or case movement not attributable to the accused, constitutional defenses may apply (highly fact-specific).

6.5. Demurrer to Evidence (After Prosecution Rests)

If the prosecution’s evidence fails to prove an element, a demurrer can seek dismissal on insufficiency.

6.6. Search/Seizure, Custodial, and Due Process Violations

Where evidence is obtained unlawfully (rare in ordinary estafa but possible in device seizures), suppression issues can arise.

7) Settlement, Affidavit of Desistance, Restitution: What They Do (and Don’t Do)

7.1. Affidavit of Desistance

In practice, complainants sometimes execute affidavits of desistance after payment or compromise. Legally:

Estafa is generally treated as an offense against the State; desistance does not automatically dismiss the case.
Prosecutors and courts may still proceed if evidence supports prosecution.

7.2. Restitution / Payment

Repayment does not necessarily erase criminal liability once the crime is complete.
But it can be powerful to show:
- absence of fraudulent intent,
- good faith,
- mitigation on penalty considerations (fact-dependent),
- and it often influences case dynamics.

7.3. Compromise

Civil aspects can often be compromised (civil liability), but criminal prosecution may remain unless dismissal is justified by lack of evidence or legal grounds.

8) Penalties and Why Amount and Classification Matter

Estafa penalties under Article 315 vary based on:

The amount of damage,
The mode (abuse of confidence, deceit, etc.),
Whether special laws apply (e.g., syndicated estafa).

Because penalties often scale with amounts and categories, defense work commonly includes:

Contesting the amount,
Segregating unrelated claims,
Demonstrating partial performance and offsets,
Challenging whether the facts fit a higher-penalty classification.

9) Common Estafa Scenarios and Targeted Defense Playbooks

A. “Investment” / “High Return” Deals

Prosecution story: false promise induced payment. Defense focus: risk disclosures, nature of investment vs. guaranteed return, absence of misrepresentation, investor sophistication, communications showing no guaranteed profit, business reversal.

B. “Consignment” / “Agent failed to remit”

Prosecution story: entrusted goods/money, failure to remit = misappropriation. Defense focus: contract terms on title/ownership, liquidation practices, authorized deductions, offsets, return of unsold goods, proof of remittances, lack of demand requirement depending on charge theory.

C. “Downpayment” for Goods/Services Not Delivered

Prosecution story: took money, never delivered, disappeared. Defense focus: capacity and intent to deliver, procurement attempts, supplier failure, refund offers, partial delivery, communications; show no deceit at inception.

D. “Loan” Not Repaid

Prosecution story: borrowed with promise to repay, did not. Defense focus: this is usually civil unless proven deceit at inception (e.g., false identity, fake collateral). Show true identity, real transaction, lack of deception, subsequent payments, restructuring.

E. Check-Related Complaints

Prosecution story: issued check knowing it would bounce, inducing transaction. Defense focus: check as guarantee; timing; disclosures; for B.P. 22, notice of dishonor issues and proof of issuance/signature.

10) Practical Strategy Notes (Within Legal Bounds)

Lock down the classification: identify the exact paragraph/mode alleged. Defenses change depending on whether the theory is deceit vs. misappropriation.
Build a clean timeline: when representations were made, when money/property changed hands, when problems arose.
Document the transaction’s legal nature: trust/agency vs. sale/loan/investment. Ownership and obligation-to-return are decisive.
Prove good faith with receipts and communications: transparency defeats fraudulent intent narratives.
Challenge damage and causation: isolate what loss is truly attributable to alleged fraud.
Be careful with admissions: casual “I will pay” messages can be twisted; the safer framing is performance status, accounting, and the contractual nature of obligations.
Separate civil settlement from criminal defenses: payment may help, but the legal route to dismissal is still element-based insufficiency or procedural grounds.

11) Checklist of Defense Theories (Quick Reference)

Substantive

No deceit / no false pretense
Misrepresentation not prior to or contemporaneous with delivery
No reliance / reliance unreasonable
Purely civil obligation / breach of contract only
No entrustment / no obligation to return or deliver the same property
Ownership transferred (debtor-creditor relationship)
No misappropriation / funds used as authorized / full accounting
No damage or damage not proved / inflated claim
Good faith / honest mistake / business reversal
Lack of identity or participation (especially in corporate settings)
Authority/consent/ratification by complainant
Novation (limited, fact-specific)
Not syndicated (attack formation and scheme, if alleged)

Evidentiary

Inconsistencies and credibility issues
Weak documentary foundation / unauthenticated exhibits
Timeline contradictions
Traceable use of funds / liquidation records
Forgery or lack of proof of issuance/signature (check cases)

Procedural

Motion to quash (jurisdiction, insufficiency, prescription, duplicity)
Lack of probable cause
Improper venue
Speedy disposition / inordinate delay (fact-specific)
Demurrer to evidence after prosecution rests
Exclusion of illegally obtained evidence (where applicable)

12) Bottom Line

Estafa cases are won by pinpointing the charged mode, then breaking an essential element—most commonly by showing the transaction is civil, the accused acted in good faith, there was no deceit at the time of payment, there was no entrustment or duty to return, there was no misappropriation, or damage and causation are not proven. Procedural tools can end weak cases earlier, but the most durable defense remains reasonable doubt grounded in documents, timelines, and the true legal nature of the transaction.