Estafa Complaint Requirements in the Philippines
Everything a complainant, counsel, or law-enforcement officer needs to know
1. Legal Foundations
| Source of the offense | Key provision | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC), Art. 315 | “Swindling or Estafa” | Defines estafa, enumerates modes, states penalties (amended by R.A. 10951) |
| Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure | Complaint & Information | How and where to commence criminal actions |
| Rule on Criminal Procedure of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) | DOJ Circular No. 70 (series 2000) & later circulars | Mechanics of filing a complaint-affidavit, preliminary investigation, appeals |
| Civil Code, Art. 33 & 2176; Art. 2180 | Independent civil action & quasi-delict | Parallel civil remedies for victims |
| Republic Act 10951 (2017) | Adjustment of penalties & amounts | Re-pegged the value brackets used in Art. 315 for inflation |
| Special laws (e.g., Trust Receipts Law, PD 1689) | Qualified estafa variants | Higher penalties or qualifying circumstances |
2. What Exactly Is Estafa?
Estafa is the generic Spanish term for swindling. Under Art. 315, it punishes fraudulent acts that cause damage to another. Philippine law groups estafa by the manner of deceit:
With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence e.g., misappropriating money received in trust, converting property entrusted for a specific purpose.
By false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud e.g., pretending to be a licensed agent, issuing bouncing checks to induce delivery of goods.
Through fraudulent means without the elements in (1) or (2) e.g., removing encumbrances from pledged property.
Each sub-paragraph in Art. 315 (1)(a)-(d), (2)(a)-(d), (3)(a)-(b) further describes specific situations.
3. Elements the Prosecution Must Allege and Prove
| Mode | Elements (must be concurrent) |
|---|---|
| Misappropriation / Conversion (Art. 315 (1)(b)) | 1. Money, goods, or any personal property is received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to deliver or return. 2. The respondent misappropriated or converted the same, or denied receipt thereof. 3. Such act is to the prejudice of another. 4. Demand by the offended party (not an element of the crime, but powerful evidence of misappropriation). |
| False Pretenses (Art. 315 (2)(a)) | 1. There is a false representation of a fact. 2. Representation is made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud. 3. Offended party relied on the representation and consequently parted with money or property. 4. Damage suffered by the offended party. |
| Defraudation of public funds (Art. 315 (1)(a)) | Same as (1)(b) but involving property in official custody (e.g., public officer or private individual acting in an official capacity). |
Note: BP 22 (Bouncing Checks) may coexist with estafa under Art. 315 (2)(d) when deceit, not mere issuance of an unfunded check, is emphasized; but they protect different interests and require different mental states (deceit vs. knowledge of insufficiency of funds).
4. Penalties and the Role of Amount Involved (as amended by R.A. 10951)
| Amount defrauded | Penalty (RPC Art. 315 + R.A. 10951) | Class | Prescriptive period (Art. 90-91) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ ₱1,000 | Arresto menor (1 day–30 days) | Light | 2 years |
| > ₱1,000 – ≤ ₱40,000 | Arresto mayor (1 month 1 day–6 months) | Correctional | 5 years |
| > ₱40,000 – ≤ ₱1,200,000 | Prisión correccional (6 months 1 day–6 years) | Correctional | 10 years |
| > ₱1,200,000 but ≤ ₱2,400,000 | Prisión mayor minimo (6 years 1 day–8 years) | Afflictive | 15 years |
| > ₱2,400,000 | Prisión mayor medium to maximum (8 years 1 day–12 years) PLUS a fine up to triple the amount defrauded (max ₱4.8 M) | Afflictive | 15 years |
| Qualified estafa (if committed by a syndicate or victim is the government) | Reclusión temporal (12 years 1 day–20 years) to reclusión perpetua | Heinous | 20 years |
The prescriptive period starts from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party and runs until the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office or court.
5. Core Documentary Requirements for a Complaint-Affidavit
Verified Complaint-Affidavit Must narrate facts constituting the elements, state dates, amounts, identities, and attach proof. It must be sworn and subscribed before a prosecutor, administering officer, or a notary public.
Supporting Affidavits Affidavits of witnesses (e.g., bookkeepers, auditors, bank officers) showing personal knowledge.
Documentary Exhibits Receipts, contracts, acknowledgment forms, demand letters, bank records, bounced checks, inventory reports, emails, chat logs, CCTV stills, etc. Arrange and label them chronologically.
Certification Against Forum Shopping – Required only if the complainant simultaneously files an independent civil action. For a purely criminal complaint this is not required.
Proof of Authority – If a corporate victim, attach Secretary’s Certificate or Board Resolution authorizing the filing and identifying the representative / affiant.
Government-issued IDs – To establish identity of affiants.
Digital Media – If submitting USB/optical media, include a hash value printout and an undertaking that the exhibits are exact copies.
Payment of Filing/Docket Fees – For criminal complaints with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, no docket fee is generally collected (fees are paid upon filing information in court). However, some LGUs collect minimal P50-P100 “legal research” fees — verify local rules.
6. Step-by-Step Filing Workflow
| Stage | Who acts | Key deadlines & notes |
|---|---|---|
| A. Preparation | Complainant & counsel | Gather evidence, draft complaint-affidavit; ensure facts show all estafa elements. |
| B. Verification & Swearing | Any prosecutor or notary public | Always take an oath; unsworn complaints are treated as scrap of paper. |
| C. Lodging with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (OCP/OPP) | Complainant | Receive NPS documentary stamp indicating case number (e.g., I-05-INV-25A-00012). |
| D. 15-Day Counter-Affidavit Period | Respondent | Summons served; respondent must personally appear to swear counter-affidavits. |
| E. Clarificatory Hearing (discretionary) | Investigating prosecutor | Must issue subpoena at least 5 days before the hearing; parties may cross-question. |
| F. Resolution and Information | Investigator, then City/Provincial Prosecutor | 60-day rule (DOJ Circular 70) to resolve; may be extended for complexity. |
| G. Petition for Review (optional) | Aggrieved party | Within 15 days of receiving resolution to Regional/City Prosecutor, and another 15 day level to DOJ, then 15 days to the Office of the President on pure questions of law. |
| H. Filing in Court | Prosecutor | Once in court, the Information may not be dismissed or compromised except by valid motion to quash or acquittal. |
| I. Arraignment & Pre-Trial | Court | Must occur within 30 days from filing of Information (Speedy Trial Act). |
| J. Trial & Decision | Court | Public prosecution; restitution and damages may be awarded at judgment. |
7. Venue and Jurisdiction
Criminal jurisdiction depends on penalty, not amount alone.
| Court | When proper | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC/MeTC) | When imposable penalty is ≤ 6 years (amount ≤ ₱1.2 M) | 2023 Court Reorganization Act keeps threshold at 6 years. |
| Regional Trial Court (RTC) | Amount defrauded > ₱1.2 M or qualified estafa | Estafa syndicate cases are tried by RTC even if amount below threshold. |
| Sandiganbayan | If the offender is a public official with SG 27+ and crime arose from official duty | People v. Go, 2020 clarifies SG basis. |
| Place | Locus delicti rule: where any essential element occurred (e.g., place of receipt or misappropriation) | Victims often file where demand letter was served, but Supreme Court allows that only if demand is an essential element for the mode invoked. |
8. Crucial Jurisprudence (selected)
| Case | G.R. No. | Ruling / Take-away |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Bridge, 16 Phil 21 (1910) | — | Demand is not an element of misappropriation but corroborates conversion. |
| People v. Cainglet, G.R. 227495 (Apr 4 2022) | Complaint-affidavit unsubstantiated by business records insufficient; conviction reversed. | |
| Sy v. People, G.R. 207087 (Jun 16 2021) | Separate civil enforcement under Art. 33 barred by double recovery when criminal case already included restitution. | |
| Montemayor v. People, G.R. 181089 (Jan 25 2017) | Good faith belief in ownership negates deceit; acquittal. | |
| People v. Malabanan, G.R. 257287 (Nov 13 2023) | Cyber-fraud with crypto wallets prosecuted under Art. 315 (2)(a); court analogized “property” to digital tokens. |
9. Common Evidentiary Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)
- Missing element-specific details State the exact representation, when it was made, and how reliance caused loss.
- Absence of quantified damage Attach audited statements or valuation reports if the loss is not obvious.
- Unexplained delay in filing Long gaps raise doubt about deceit; explain circumstances (e.g., settlement talks).
- Failure to authenticate digital exhibits Hash values, screenshots with metadata, or testimony of IT custodian bolster admissibility.
- Inadequate link between respondent and deceptive act Provide e-mails, SMS, voice logs, or eyewitness testimony tying the respondent personally to the fraud.
10. Defenses Typically Raised
| Category | Illustrative arguments |
|---|---|
| No deceit / good faith | Money was applied with owner’s consent; transaction was a loan, not a trust. |
| Pure civil liability | Relationship is contractual; breach of contract ≠ estafa (People v. Ang, 2020). |
| Novation / compromise | New agreement extinguished criminal liability (generally not a bar unless it shows absence of deceit ab initio). |
| Prescription | Complaint filed beyond applicable period; discovery rule misapplied. |
| Violation of right to speedy disposition | Investigative delay > 2–3 years without justification (following Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, 2018). |
11. Civil Remedies & Restitution
Upon conviction, the court must order restitution or reparation (RPC Art. 104-107). Provisional remedies while the case is pending include:
- Attachment under Rule 57 (if action for recovery of property/civil damages is filed with the criminal case)
- Freezing orders from the Anti-Money Laundering Council for proceeds traceable to fraud
- Independent civil action under Art. 33 of the Civil Code (fraud is deliberate) — may be filed even during pendency of criminal action, subject to reservation rules in Rule 111.
12. Practical Checklist for Counsel Before Filing
- Do I have documents to prove entrustment or false representation?
- Is the amount clear, updated (consider forex if denominated in USD), and within the limitation period?
- Did I compute the correct prescriptive period and note date of discovery?
- Are all affidavits notarized and executed by persons with personal knowledge?
- Have I attached proof of identity/authority for corporate complainants?
- Is venue proper? If multiple places are possible, choose the forum with best access to witnesses.
- Have I analyzed possible BP 22 overlap or other special laws to avoid splitting the cause of action?
- Do I anticipate defenses of novation or good faith and can I rebut them?
- Did I prepare an optional Demand Letter to show bad faith and trigger default?
- Have I considered media or SEC/Banking regulator referral if public interest or investor protection is involved?
13. Frequently Asked Questions
| Question | Short Answer |
|---|---|
| Is demand always required? | No. For modes based on misappropriation, demand is not an element but is strongly persuasive evidence. |
| Can estafa be settled? | Yes, but extinguishment requires express waiver by the offended party before judgment and acceptance by the court (Art. 89 RPC). |
| May I prosecute without a lawyer? | The OCP will assist in drafting, but technical defects risk dismissal; counsel is highly recommended. |
| Does corporate rehabilitation halt estafa proceedings? | No. Criminal liability is personal; corporate moratoria do not suspend criminal actions. |
| Is restitution equal to acquittal? | No; paying back only mitigates civil liability and may be considered a mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender or restitution), but does not erase the crime. |
14. Conclusion
Filing an estafa complaint in the Philippines demands meticulous attention to both substantive law (matching facts with the precise estafa mode) and procedural rules (NPS filing, jurisdiction, venue, and deadlines). Success hinges on comprehensive documentation, coherent narrative, and strategic anticipation of defenses. While estafa straddles the line between civil wrong and public offense, its criminal dimension serves a clear policy: to punish deceit that erodes trust in commercial and fiduciary relationships. Mastery of the requirements outlined above equips practitioners and victims alike to harness the law’s full remedial arsenal without falling into avoidable procedural pitfalls.