Here’s a practitioner-grade explainer on estafa threshold amounts under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. 10951 (2017)—Philippine context, no web search used per your instruction. I’ll focus on the amount brackets, penalty computation, and practical consequences (prescription, probation, aggregation, civil liability, overlaps with special laws).
What changed with R.A. 10951?
R.A. 10951 updated the peso amounts that determine the imprisonment range and fine for estafa (Art. 315). The mode of commission (Art. 315 ¶1–3: with unfaithfulness/abuse of confidence; by false pretenses or fraudulent acts; by fraudulent means) doesn’t affect the thresholds; the amount defrauded (or damage caused) does.
Key idea: Once guilt for any Art. 315 mode is established, the amount controls the penalty bracket below.
The estafa thresholds (post–R.A. 10951)
The court looks at the amount actually defrauded (or damage actually caused) and applies the bracket. The fine is imposed in addition to imprisonment, and shall not exceed the amount defrauded.
| Amount defrauded / damage | Imprisonment (principal penalty)* | Notes on penalty class |
|---|---|---|
| Not more than ₱40,000 | Arresto mayor (max) to Prisión correccional (min) | Correctional if it lands in prisión correccional; otherwise light correctional. |
| More than ₱40,000 up to ₱1,200,000 | Prisión correccional (medium to maximum) | Correctional penalty. |
| More than ₱1,200,000 up to ₱2,400,000 | Prisión correccional (maximum) | Still correctional. |
| More than ₱2,400,000 | Prisión correccional (maximum) to Prisión mayor (minimum) plus incremental years (see below), cap at 20 years | Can become afflictive (enters prisión mayor range). |
- Fine: The court also imposes a fine not exceeding the amount defrauded (Art. 315). Subsidiary imprisonment applies in case of insolvency to pay the fine, following general RPC rules.
Incremental penalty rule (top bracket)
For amounts over ₱2,400,000, the law adds one (1) year of imprisonment for each additional ₱10,000 defrauded, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty (20) years. In practice, courts compute the base range (prisión correccional max to prisión mayor min), then layer the incremental years, capped at 20.
The “20-year” ceiling means the imposed maximum cannot exceed reclusión temporal minimum in length even though the statutory label in Article 315 still references correccional/ mayor ranges.
How courts apply the brackets (practical points)
Amount basis & proof The prosecution must allege and prove the amount (or damage). The exact figure controls the bracket; if doubt remains on the amount, courts may apply the lower bracket.
Aggregation of amounts
- Single transaction / single deceit involving several deliveries or partial payments is commonly aggregated for one charge.
- Separate and distinct deceits (different complainants or acts at different times) are ordinarily separate offenses; you cannot aggregate across distinct crimes unless the information and proof show a single continuing scheme constituting one estafa.
- Syndicated/large-scale estafa (P.D. 1689) is a different animal with far heavier penalties when elements are met (e.g., five or more offenders forming a syndicate, defrauding the public). The Art. 315 thresholds do not control P.D. 1689.
Civil liability & restitution Conviction carries civil liability equal to the amount defrauded plus interest (and sometimes consequential damages). Even if imprisonment is reduced via probation or a plea, civil liability subsists.
Prescription (how long the State can file)
- If the penalty, given the amount, stays within prisión correccional (correctional), prescription is 10 years under Art. 90 RPC.
- If it enters prisión mayor (afflictive), prescription is 15 years. Amount therefore matters twice: for penalty and for prescriptive period.
Probation eligibility
- Check the maximum term actually imposed. If the sentence does not exceed 6 years, probation may be available (subject to disqualifications).
- In the top bracket, the incremental years can push the sentence over 6, often disqualifying the accused from probation.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) Courts impose indeterminate sentences (minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower in degree; maximum within the proper bracket), except when ISL doesn’t apply (e.g., reclusion temporal cap situations under special rules). Computation tracks the bracket chosen under Article 315.
Mitigating/aggravating circumstances Within a bracket, the court picks the period (min/med/max) using Art. 64 rules, then applies the ISL and any plea-bargaining outcomes.
Worked examples (for counsel’s quick checks)
DP scam of ₱900,000 (single victim; one information)
- Bracket: >₱40,000–₱1,200,000 → prisión correccional (medium to max) + fine ≤ ₱900,000.
- Prescription: 10 years.
- Probation: Possibly yes, depending on imposed maximum (≤ 6 years) and other factors.
Investment estafa of ₱3,100,000 (single transaction)
- Base bracket: >₱2,400,000 → prisión correccional (max) to prisión mayor (min).
- Incrementals: Excess over ₱2,400,000 is ₱700,000. At 1 year per ₱10,000, the math would exceed the 20-year cap, so ceiling applies: 20 years (maximum).
- Prescription: Treat as afflictive → 15 years.
- Probation: Effectively no (sentence exceeds 6 years).
Five separate victims, ₱300,000 each, charged separately
- Each case sits in ₱40,000–₱1,200,000 bracket. No cross-case aggregation. Counsel may explore joinder/duplicitous pleading only if facts support one continuing scheme.
Interactions with special laws (quick contrasts)
B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law): Separate offense (malum prohibitum). Amount doesn’t control the penalty the same way; imprisonment/fine are statutory, and civil liability rides with estafa or a separate civil action. Prosecutors often file both Art. 315 and B.P. 22 if the facts fit. Compromise or full restitution can mitigate sentencing and may lead to dismissal on B.P. 22 (at judicial discretion), but it does not erase the crime of estafa already consummated.
P.D. 1689 (Syndicated/Large-Scale Estafa): When elements are present (e.g., syndicate of ≥5 and defrauding the public), penalties jump to reclusión perpetua (parity with heinous felonies). Art. 315 thresholds don’t apply here.
Charging, pleading, and judgment tips
- Information drafting: Plead the specific estafa mode (Art. 315 ¶…), and state the amount clearly.
- Evidence: Firm up amount (receipts, transfers, appraisals, valuations), causal deceit, and damage.
- Plea bargaining: If the alleged amount straddles brackets, factual stipulations can re-anchor the case into a lower bracket, affecting ISL, probation, and prescription.
- Sentencing memo: Walk the court through (i) mode, (ii) amount proven, (iii) correct bracket, (iv) period selection via Art. 64, (v) ISL computation, (vi) fine (≤ amount defrauded), and (vii) civil liability + interest (from demand or filing, per jurisprudence).
- Restitution: Early, complete restitution doesn’t bar conviction but is routinely considered in mitigation and in fine calibration.
Bottom line (one-page memory aid)
Thresholds drive time:
- ≤ ₱40k → Arresto mayor (max) to Prisión correccional (min).
- ₱40k–₱1.2M → Prisión correccional (med–max).
- ₱1.2M–₱2.4M → Prisión correccional (max).
- > ₱2.4M → Prisión correccional (max) to Prisión mayor (min) + 1 year per additional ₱10k, cap 20 years.
Fine: impose in addition, not exceeding the amount defrauded.
Prescription: 10 years (correctional) or 15 years (afflictive)—amount decides.
Aggregation: allowed for one scheme/transaction; otherwise separate offenses.
Special laws: B.P. 22 (separate), P.D. 1689 (syndicated/large-scale—thresholds here don’t apply).
If you want, I can turn this into a sentencing calculator sheet (inputs: amount, mitigating/aggravating data → outputs: bracket, ISL range, probation/prescription flags) that you can drop into case memos.