Estafa and Qualified Theft Charges Against Employees

“Estafa and Qualified Theft Charges Against Employees” A Comprehensive Philippine Legal Guide (2025 Update)


1. Overview and Importance

Employee dishonesty cases almost always take one of two criminal routes in Philippine law: (a) Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or (b) Qualified Theft under Articles 308–310 RPC. Understanding the distinctions is crucial because:

  • Wrong classification = dismissal of the case. Courts strictly apply the technical elements.
  • Penalties differ sharply. Qualified theft carries stiffer penalties—two degrees higher than simple theft—while estafa penalties hinge on the amount involved.
  • Juridical-versus-material possession dictates which crime applies.

Employers, HR practitioners, and counsel therefore need a working mastery of both offenses.


2. Core Statutory Provisions

Crime Governing Article Key Phrase Penalty Baseline after R.A. 10951 (2017)*
Theft Art. 308 “Taking of personal property… without violence or intimidation… with intent to gain” Graduated by value (Art. 309)
Qualified Theft Art. 310 “Committed by a domestic servant or with grave abuse of confidence” (includes employees) Two degrees higher than Art. 309
Estafa (Swindling) Art. 315(1)(b) “Misappropriating or converting… money, goods, or any other personal property received in trust, on commission, or for administration” Graduated by value, but NOT raised two degrees

* R.A. 10951 adjusted the monetary brackets upward (e.g., theft below PHP 5,000 now punished by arresto menor); always consult the updated scale when computing penalties.


3. Elements and How They Compare

Qualified Theft Estafa (Art. 315(1)(b))
Possession given Material only (employee merely holds or accesses property) Juridical possession (legal title or administration, e.g., cash custodian given money to deposit)
Actus reus Taking & carrying away (asportation) Misappropriation or conversion, or denial of receipt
Relationship w/ employer Must involve “grave abuse of confidence.” Employer-employee suffices Trust must be explicit; estafa often arises from agency, commission, or deposit
Intent to gain (animus lucrandi) Presumed from taking Presumed from misappropriation
Evidence CCTV, inventories, possession of stolen items Audit shortages, altered books, refusal to account, demand letters
Penalty Two degrees higher than theft (example: theft worth PHP 500,000 → prisión mayor max. to reclusión temporal mid.) Same ladder as theft but without the two-degree jump

Mnemonic: If the employee got it under custody only: qualified theft. If the employee got it under legal trust/authority: estafa.


4. The Crucial “Possession” Test

  1. Material/Physical Possession The employee merely handles or guards the item.

    • Example: Waiter pockets customer’s phone left on a table.
  2. Juridical/Legal Possession The employee may lawfully deal with the property, subject to an obligation to deliver or return.

    • Example: Cashier receives day’s sales for deposit but diverts the money.

Supreme Court touchstone: People v. Isaac (G.R. No. 208193, 21 Jan 2015) – company treasurer who received funds in trust and absconded was convicted of estafa, not theft. The Court emphasized transfer of juridical possession.


5. Penalty Computation (post-R.A. 10951)**

Step 1: Determine amount/value lost. Step 2: Locate bracket under Art. 309 (theft) or Art. 315 (estafa). Step 3: If qualified theft, raise two degrees.

Illustrative grid (PHP)

Amount Involved Simple Theft (Art. 309) Qualified Theft Estafa (Art. 315)
≤ 5,000 Arresto menor to arresto mayor Prisión correccional Same as theft
> 5,000 – ≤ 200,000 Arresto mayor to prisión correccional Prisión mayor Same as theft
> 200,000 – ≤ 1,200,000 Prisión correccional max.– prisión mayor min. Prisión mayor max. – reclusión temporal mid. Same as theft
> 1,200,000 Prisión mayor mid.– reclusión temporal min. Reclusión temporal max. – reclusión perpetua Prisión mayor to reclusión temporal

Notes:

  • No subsidiary imprisonment for qualified theft if the penalty exceeds prisión correccional (Art. 39 RPC).
  • If the information omits the amount, the court can only impose the minimum bracket.

6. Jurisprudence Snapshot (Employee Context)

Case G.R. No. Date Ratio / Lesson
People v. Abrogar 150221 21 Feb 2005 Gas station cashier who failed to remit sales → estafa; juridical possession of proceeds.
People v. Magno 231000 10 Jun 2020 Warehouseman secretly loaded and sold company rice → qualified theft; only material possession.
People v. Gallarde 215006 25 Mar 2019 Bank teller encashed forged checks → estafa under Art. 315(1)(a) (false pretenses), not qualified theft.
People v. Dizon 194255 11 Jan 2016 Admin aide who took laptops left in her care → qualified theft; grave abuse of confidence elevated penalty.
People v. Baylon 233184 26 Aug 2020 HR head diverted SSS contributions, convicted of estafa; funds received for a specific purpose.

7. Procedural Guide for Employers

  1. Internal Audit & Evidence Preservation

    • Inventory discrepancies, CCTV extracts, audit trails, emails.
  2. Issue Written Demand (for estafa)

    • Although demand is not an element, it bolsters proof of misappropriation.
  3. Administrative Due Process (Labor Code, Art. 297 & DOLE D.O. 147-15)

    • Notice-explanation-hearing before termination.
  4. File Criminal Complaint-Affidavit

    • At the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor where the offense occurred.
  5. Watch-List & Hold-Departure (optional)

    • Through DOJ lift-order protocols if flight risk exists.
  6. Civil Action

    • Restitution is implied; employer may alternatively/simultaneously sue for collection or breach.

8. Defenses Commonly Raised by Accused Employees

Defense Applicability Rebuttal Tips for Prosecution
Lack of Intent to Gain Theft/qualified theft Show conversion for personal use or attempt to conceal.
Ownership Claim / Compensation Estafa & theft Require documentary proof; mere allegation insufficient.
No Abuse of Confidence To downgrade qualified theft to simple theft Demonstrate entrusted position (cashier, inventory clerk).
Absence of Juridical Possession To defeat estafa Prove existence of agency contract, SOPs, receipts.
Full Restitution Mitigates penalty but does not erase liability Note Art. 89 RPC: extinction of civil liability only.

9. Prescription

  • Both crimes prescribe based on the maximum imposable penalty (Art. 90 RPC).

    • Qualified theft often yields reclusión temporal → prescription: 15 years.
    • Estafa penalties vary; if over prisión correccional – prisión mayor → prescription: 10–15 years.
  • The period is tolled from filing of complaint-affidavit (People v. Olarte doctrine).


10. Interplay with Labor Law

  • Termination vs. Criminal Prosecution – Independent remedies (Art. 305 Labor Code).
  • Backwages & Reinstatement – Not available if dismissal based on serious misconduct or loss of trust and confidence.
  • Breach of Trust Positions – SC upholds dismissals of rank-and-file employees entrusted with property/money even on substantial evidence, a lower threshold than “beyond reasonable doubt.”

11. Best-Practice Checklist for Employers

  1. Define Juridical vs. Material Possession in SOPs – Clarify who merely “holds” versus who “administers.”
  2. Written Acknowledgments & Receipts – Convert gray-area custody into juridical possession (useful for estafa filings).
  3. Regular Surprise Audits – Deters and documents shortages early.
  4. CCTV & Tech Controls – Chain of custody for digital evidence is vital in court.
  5. Prompt Filing – Delays can be spun as waiver or condonation.

12. Policy Trends (2023-2025)

  • E-wallet Misappropriation – New estafa prosecutions involve company GCash/PayMaya corporate wallets. Courts apply estafa if custody was for reimbursement administration.
  • Cyber Qualified Theft? – RPC already covers “taking personal property.” Jurisprudence now treats unauthorized transfer of crypto assets as qualified theft if employee merely had wallet access (People v. Cruz, C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 12655, 11 Apr 2024).

13. Practical Take-Aways

  • Start with possession analysis. Ask: Did the employee have legal authority to deal with the property?
  • For estafa, always document the entrustment and the demand.
  • For qualified theft, highlight the “grave abuse of confidence.”
  • Penalties after R.A. 10951 are heavier than many expect; compute carefully.
  • Administrative action is separate—dismiss promptly but fairly.

14. Conclusion

Employee misappropriation cases revolve on a single pivot: possession. Nail that, and the choice between estafa and qualified theft becomes straightforward. Correct classification ensures the right information, the right penalty, and ultimately, justice for both employer and employee.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.