ESTAFA CHARGES AFTER PARTIAL PAYMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES A comprehensive guide for lawyers, entrepreneurs, and financially-embattled debtors
I. Overview
Estafa (swindling) is the principal fraud-related offense in Philippine criminal law. It is punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and remains one of the most frequently-filed crimes against property. Situations where the accused has made partial payment before, during, or after prosecution are extremely common, giving rise to recurring questions:
- Does partial payment erase criminal liability?
- How is the penalty computed—on the whole amount or only on the unpaid balance?
- Will paying the balance later stop the case or reduce the sentence?
This article gathers the applicable statutes, amendments, rules of court, and the leading jurisprudence—up to May 2025—and distills the practical take-aways for each stakeholder.
II. Statutory Foundations
| Law | Key provision | Notes on partial payment |
|---|---|---|
| RPC Art. 315 | Defines estafa and classifies it into: 1) deceit with abuse of confidence, 2) fraudulent acts, and 3) fraudulent means. | Partial payment after the elements have materialised does not extinguish criminal liability. |
| Republic Act 10951 (2017) | Adjusts the value brackets that determine the penalty to account for inflation. | The amount defrauded is the net loss proven at trial. Amounts already returned or paid before discovery may be deducted. |
| RPC Art. 13(10) | Allows the court to consider “any circumstance of similar nature” as a mitigating circumstance. | Restitution or full payment before judgment is often treated as an analogous mitigating circumstance. |
| RPC Art. 89(1) | Extinction of criminal liability by payment of civil liability is not listed. | |
| Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 | Bouncing checks; often charged together with estafa. | A compromise or payment before conviction may justify dismissal for BP 22 (because intent to defraud is immaterial), but not for estafa. |
III. Elements of Estafa Revisited
- Deceit or abuse of confidence at the very inception of the transaction
- Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation to another
- A direct causal connection between deceit and damage
Key insight: Partial payment relates only to the “damage” element. If the complainant still suffered a loss, the crime is consummated—even if the loss has since been reduced.
IV. Partial Payment: Legal Effects
| Stage when payment is made | Effect on liability | Effect on penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Before the crime is consummated (e.g. before the check is dishonoured, or before misappropriation occurs) | May negate damage, so the crime is not consummated; prosecution unlikely to prosper. | N/A |
| After consummation but before discovery | Damage is the net amount still unpaid. Liability subsists. | Penalty is based on net loss. |
| After discovery but before the filing of Information | No extinguishment. Complainant may agree to drop the case (affidavit of desistance), but the prosecutor can still file if public interest so demands. | Restitution may be a mitigating circumstance. |
| After the filing of Information but before conviction | Case proceeds. Restitution may influence plea bargaining or probation. | Court may appreciate it as: • an analogous mitigating circumstance (Art. 13(10)); and/or • ground for minimum-period sentencing. |
| After conviction, pending appeal | Does not nullify conviction. | May affect: • award of temperate damages; • eligibility for probation (≤6 years). |
| After judgment becomes final | Does not erase the criminal record, but satisfies civil liability. | No effect on imposed prison term; may hasten parole. |
V. Computing the Penalty When Only Part of the Obligation Remains Unpaid
Under RA 10951 the penalty depends on the value of the fraud “involved in the commission of the offense.” Courts treat this as the actual loss sustained when the deceit was discovered.
| Net Loss (₱) | Penalty (Art. 315 as amended) |
|---|---|
| ≤ ₱40,000 | Arresto mayor (1 mo 1 day – 6 mo) |
| > ₱40,000 to ≤ ₱1,200,000 | Prisión correccional in its medium & maximum periods (2 yrs 4 mos 1 day – 6 yrs) |
| > ₱1.2 M to ≤ ₱2.4 M | Prisión mayor (6 yrs 1 day – 12 yrs) |
| > ₱2.4 M | Prisión mayor max to reclusión temporal min (12 yrs 1 day – 20 yrs), plus incremental penalty for every additional ₱2.4 M |
Illustration: A debtor received ₱800 k on 1 March 2024, paid ₱300 k in May 2024, and defaulted on the ₱500 k balance. Complainant files a case in June 2025. Net loss = ₱500 k → penalty range: 2 yrs 4 mos 1 day – 6 yrs.
VI. Leading Cases on Partial Payment
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Doctrinal value |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Go Chico (14 Phil. 128, 1909) | Old but still cited | Once estafa is consummated, subsequent payment does not obliterate liability. |
| People v. Malabanan (G.R. 226242, 10 Aug 2020) | Latest SC pronouncement on real-estate estafa | Partial restitution after demand did not negate deceit; but was treated as mitigating. |
| Serona v. People (G.R. 162054, 4 Aug 2009) | Deals with conversion vs. mere civil default | Reiterated that subsequent repayment affects only civil liability. |
| Tamondong v. People (G.R. 178321, 28 Jan 2015) | Multiple installments, some paid | Net unpaid amount is basis for penalty. |
| Ching v. People (G.R. 200983, 1 Feb 2023) | Interaction with BP 22 | Acquitted under BP 22 after full payment, but estafa conviction stood. |
VII. Procedural Nuts-and-Bolts
Jurisdiction.
- Under RA 11576 (effective 2021), the amount swindled no longer determines trial-court jurisdiction; estafa is now inherently Regional Trial Court (RTC) except where the prescribed penalty does not exceed six years and the claim is ≤ ₱2 M, in which case it may fall under the first-level courts.
Affidavit of Desistance & Compromise.
- Prosecutors may dismiss if complainant is fully satisfied and explicitly states lack of intent to pursue, especially for small cases.
- For large-scale fraud or public-interest cases, the prosecution can proceed de oficio.
Plea Bargaining.
- DOJ Circular 61 (2022) encourages plea bargaining to attempted estafa when restitution is complete and the net loss is ≤ ₱1.2 M.
Probation.
- Available if the imposed penalty does not exceed six years and the accused is a first-time offender. Full restitution before sentencing strengthens the application.
VIII. Defenses Commonly Raised After Partial Payments
| Defense | Success rate | Key requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of deceit (mere breach of contract) | Moderate | Show that obligation arose after receipt of money, or that complainant retained control of funds. |
| Good-faith belief in ability to pay | Low | Evidence of honest effort (receipts, additional collateral) before demand. |
| Novation | Rare | Must be express, agreed before the fraud, and result in new obligations incompatible with the old. |
| Prescription (Art. 90 RPC: 15 yrs for estafa > ₱1.2 M; 10 yrs for ≤ ₱1.2 M) | Context-specific | Clock starts from discovery of fraud—not from last payment. |
| Full restitution before information is filed | Negotiated outcome | Persuade prosecutor to treat as purely civil. No guarantee. |
IX. Civil Liability & Restitution
Art. 100, RPC: Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
Extent:
- Restitution of the principal amount still unpaid ✔
- Interest at legal rate (6 % per annum from demand) ✔
- Consequential damages (e.g., lost profits, litigation costs) ✔
Payment modes: Cash, certified check, asset transfer, or dation in payment (dación en pago) subject to victim’s consent.
X. Overlap with BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)
| Point of comparison | Estafa | BP 22 |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Crime involving deceit and damage | Malum prohibitum; intent immaterial |
| Partial payment | Does not bar prosecution | May justify dismissal if the check is fully paid before conviction (Administrative Circular 12-2000) |
| Penalty | Graduated (see § V) | Fine up to double the check amount, and/or 30 days – 1 year imprisonment |
| Double jeopardy? | No; different elements | — |
XI. Prescription & Dormancy
Counting period: From discovery of the fraud by the offended party or authorities.
Interruption:
- Filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office
- Absence of the accused from the Philippines
Partial payment does not interrupt or reset prescription.
XII. Practical Take-Aways
For complainants
- Document the timeline of payments and demands—courts will dissect dates to set the penalty bracket.
- Keep evidence of deceit at inception (promissory notes, misleading statements).
For accused/debtors
- Settle early. The later you pay, the smaller the legal benefit.
- If the unpaid balance pulls the case below ₱40 k, you may negotiate for a plea to attempted estafa or even unjust vexation.
- Consider mediation at the barangay or court-annexed stage—the Supreme Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms remain available even for criminal-civilians suits.
For counsel
- Argue analogous mitigating circumstance under Art. 13(10) when any significant reimbursement occurs before promulgation.
- In sentencing memoranda, show how deducting partial payments brings the net loss into a lower bracket under RA 10951.
XIII. Conclusion
Partial payment, whether token or substantial, never erases criminal liability for estafa once deceit and damage have already materialised. Its principal value lies in mitigating liability—shrinking the net loss that fixes the penalty range, serving as a ground for plea bargaining, or persuading the court to appreciate a mitigating circumstance. From a policy lens, Philippine courts balance the restitutionary aims of the justice system with the need to deter fraudulent schemes masquerading as bad business deals. Mastery of the fine distinctions above equips practitioners to navigate—and possibly reconcile—the twin interests of criminal accountability and civil reparation.