General guide to estafa (swindling) under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 315. For case-specific advice, consult counsel or the Public Attorney’s Office.

What “estafa” means in Philippine criminal law

Estafa punishes deceit (dolo) or abuse of confidence that causes prejudice (loss or damage) to another. It is a crime distinct from a mere breach of contract. Civil non-payment alone is not estafa; the State must prove a criminal act defined in Article 315.

At a high level, every estafa mode requires:

A specific act of deceit or abuse of confidence defined by law;
Causation (the deceit/abuse induced the offended party to part with money, property, or a right, or otherwise suffer prejudice); and
Resulting prejudice (actual loss or at least disturbance of property rights—damnum emergens, lost profits, or being put at risk/encumbrance).

“Simple estafa” usually refers to the basic modes under Article 315, without aggravating circumstances or complexing with other offenses.

The three big families of estafa under Article 315

Article 315 lists specific ways of committing estafa. Practitioners group them into three “families,” each with its own elements:

1) Estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence (Art. 315(1))

(1a) Altering the substance/quantity/quality of the thing to be delivered by virtue of an obligation

Elements:
- There is an obligation to deliver the same thing received;
- Offender alters the substance/quantity/quality;
- Prejudice results.

(1b) Misappropriation or conversion of property received “in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery or return”

Elements (the classic “misappropriation estafa”):
1. Receipt by the accused of money, goods, or personal property in trust / on commission / for administration / under duty to return or deliver the same;
2. Misappropriation or conversion of such property or denial of receipt;
3. Prejudice to another;
4. Demand by the offended party is not an element, but failure to account/return after demand is strong circumstantial proof of misappropriation.
Key ideas:
- The property must be deliverable/returnable in specie (or to be accounted for), not transferred as owner.
- Title/ownership remains with the offended party or for a specific purpose; using it as if your own is conversion.

(1c) Taking undue advantage of a signature in blank

Elements:
- Offended party signs a blank paper/document;
- Accused writes/prints above that signature without authority in a way that obligates or prejudices the signatory;
- Prejudice results.

2) Estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud (Art. 315(2))

Core theme: Deceit at the inducing moment—you trick the victim into parting with property/consenting to a transfer.

Common sub-modes include:

(2a) Fictitious name; false pretenses about power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; and similar deceits

Elements:
1. False pretense/representation of a material fact (e.g., pretending to own collateral, to have authority/agency, to possess funds/credit);
2. Executed before or at the time the victim parts with property or changes position;
3. Reliance by the offended party;
4. Prejudice results.
Notes: The deceit must be the moving cause of the victim’s act; a pre-existing debt later unpaid does not satisfy this mode.

(2b) Deceits involving the quality/fineness/quantity/weight of goods or analogous misrepresentations

Elements:
- False statements/pretenses about the nature or quality of the thing sold/exchanged;
- Reliance and prejudice.
Examples: Selling counterfeit or adulterated goods while passing them off as genuine; tampering with weights and measures.

(2d) Postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation knowing at the time of issue that there are no funds or insufficient funds (estafa via bouncing check under the RPC)

Elements:
1. Issuance or postdating of a check to induce another to part with money/property or to release the accused from an obligation;
2. Knowledge of no/insufficient funds at the time of issuance;
3. Dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or account closed;
4. Damage or prejudice.
Presumption of knowledge: The law raises a presumption of knowledge if the drawer, after receiving notice of dishonor, fails to deposit sufficient funds within the statutory period (distinct from, and not identical to, the B.P. 22 regime).
Critical limitation: If the check was issued only for a pre-existing debt (i.e., no inducing deceit), estafa under the RPC does not lie, though B.P. 22 may still apply.

RPC estafa vs. B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

RPC estafa (Art. 315(2)(d)) needs deceit at inception and damage; it is a crime against property.

B.P. 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check per se, regardless of deceit or actual damage; it is malum prohibitum.

The same act can violate both, but each has different elements and defenses.

3) Other fraudulent means (Art. 315(3))

This “catch-all” family covers statutory frauds like:

Removing/disposing of encumbered property to the prejudice of creditors;
Selling or mortgaging property as free from encumbrance when it is actually encumbered, or selling/encumbering the same property to different persons;
Other fraudulent machinations specified in the article.

Common thread of elements: a specific fraudulent act defined by statute, reliance/inducement, and prejudice.

“Deceit,” “abuse of confidence,” and “prejudice”: what courts look for

Deceit is objective and causal—a false representation of material fact that induces the victim’s prejudicial act. Puffery or opinion generally won’t do; promissory statements may qualify only if made without intention to perform at the outset (i.e., fraud in inception).
Abuse of confidence depends on a fiduciary or trust relationship (consignment, agency, administration, deposit, commodatum, partnership/employee entrustment). The accused must have received the property under an obligation to return/deliver/account.
Prejudice includes actual loss, loss of a chance/profit, or disturbance/encumbrance of property rights. Partial restitution may mitigate but does not erase criminal liability once the crime is complete.

Frequent issues and practical proofs

Demand letters & failure to account: While demand is not an element, written demand and failure/refusal to return are persuasive proofs of misappropriation under Art. 315(1)(b).
Receipts & entrustment papers: Acknowledgment receipts, agency/consignment contracts, delivery notes, liquidation reports, and inventory logs prove entrustment.
Timing of deceit: For Art. 315(2), show when the misrepresentation was made and how it induced payment/delivery.
Checks cases: Keep bank return memos, notice of dishonor, proof of service of notice, and evidence of no timely funding after notice.
Corporate settings: Liability generally falls on the individual actor (officer/agent) who personally committed the deceit or conversion; the corporation’s civil liability is separate.

Defenses that recur (and when they fail)

No deceit / no fiduciary entrustment: If the transaction transferred ownership (e.g., a simple sale) and no duty to return the same thing exists, Art. 315(1)(b) usually does not apply.
Good faith / honest mistake: A bona fide belief in authority or ownership negates deceit.
Mere non-payment: Breach of contract or inability to pay after a valid sale/loan is not estafa without inducing deceit or entrustment + conversion.
Payment/novation after the fact: Does not extinguish criminal liability once the crime is complete (though it may mitigate).
Pre-existing debt checks: If a check was issued only to settle an old debt, RPC estafa (2)(d) generally does not apply.

Penalties, civil liability, and prescription (high-level)

Penalties are value-based. Article 315 imposes graduated penalties that scale with the amount defrauded, as amended by later laws adjusting monetary thresholds. Courts also apply incremental penalties beyond a base amount.
Civil liability: Conviction entails restitution, reparation, and indemnification for damages (plus interest) to the offended party, separate from imprisonment/fines.
Prescription: Estafa prescribes after a statutory period measured from commission or discovery (depending on the mode and circumstances). Filing of the criminal action interrupts prescription.

(Exact peso brackets and time bars are technical and have been amended by subsequent legislation; practitioners consult the current text and latest jurisprudence when computing.)

Checklist for complainants

Identify the specific paragraph of Art. 315 that fits your facts.
Gather entrustment documents (for 1(b)) or misrepresentation proof (for 2 modes): contracts, emails, ads, chats, call logs.
Preserve bank records, checks, return memos, notice of dishonor and proof of service (for 2(d)).
Send a written demand (courtesy + probative value), and document response or non-response.
Quantify damage (principal, lost profits, consequential costs).
Consider civil action (separate or included) for recovery; coordinate with counsel on venue and affidavit-complaint.

Checklist for respondents

Timeline of the transaction; identify whether ownership passed or whether property was entrusted for a specific purpose.
Compile accountings, liquidations, receipts, and offers to return (tend to negate conversion).
Show good-faith basis for claims of authority/ownership; preserve communications showing no intent to defraud at inception.
For checks: prove funding, stop-payment for valid cause, notice defects, or that the check was for a pre-existing obligation.
Avoid self-incrimination in civil correspondence; channel communications through counsel when appropriate.

Illustrative element maps

A. Misappropriation estafa (Art. 315(1)(b))

Entrustment: “I gave you ₱X to buy Item Y and return either the item or the exact money if the purchase fails.”
Act: You used the money for yourself and refused to return it after demand.
Result: I lost the money → prejudice.

B. False pretense of ownership/agency (Art. 315(2)(a))

Deceit: You claimed to be a sales agent authorized to sell Unit Z and showed fake “documents.”
Reliance/Causation: I paid the “reservation fee” because of that claim.
Prejudice: The principal denies any agency; money not returned.

C. Postdated/worthless check (Art. 315(2)(d))

Deceit: You issued a check to induce me to release the goods.
Knowledge: At issuance, you knew funds were insufficient (presumed if not funded after notice within the legal window).
Dishonor + Damage: Bank returned the check; I parted with goods/cash.

Practical takeaways

Always ask: Was there deceit at the start, or a fiduciary entrustment later abused? If neither, it’s likely civil, not criminal.
For entrustments, paper the purpose and require liquidations; for payments, insist on official receipts and identify the owner of the money at each stage.
In check transactions, keep proof of notice and timelines; know the different elements of RPC estafa and B.P. 22.
Restitution can mitigate penalties but will not erase a consummated estafa.

Final note

Estafa is element-driven. Success or failure of a case usually turns on paper trails, timing of deceit, and clarity of entrustment. Build or test your case by mapping facts to the exact paragraph of Article 315 and proving deceit/abuse + causation + prejudice with contemporaneous documents and credible testimony.