Estafa Threshold for Unpaid Online Loans in the Philippines
A comprehensive legal brief
1. Why “estafa” enters the picture when an online loan goes unpaid
- **Non-payment **by itself is normally a civil breach of contract.
- Criminal estafa (Article 315, Revised Penal Code) is triggered only if deceit (dolo) is present at the moment the loan was obtained – for example, using a fake identity, forged documents, or a fictitious employment certificate to induce the lender to release money.
- Once deceit and resulting damage are proved, the borrower’s mere failure to settle becomes the overt act that consummates estafa.
Key takeaway: A lender who simply extended credit in good faith and was later stiffed must sue in civil court; a lender who can show he was tricked may file an estafa complaint with the prosecutor’s office or the PNP-ACG/NBI-CCD.
2. Statutory bases
| Law | What it covers | Relevance to online loans |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 315 RPC (Estafa) | Classic “swindling” modes (false pretence, abuse of confidence, bouncing cheques, etc.) | Core offence; amount defrauded determines the threshold brackets and penalty. |
| R.A. 10951 (2017) | Updated the money amounts in Art. 315 (and other RPC property crimes) to reflect inflation | Sets the current peso thresholds shown in § 3 below. |
| R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) | Any felony “committed through, with, and by means of” ICT incurs a penalty one degree higher (Sec. 6) | “Cyber-estafa” applies to app-based, web-based, or social-media-facilitated loans. |
| R.A. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act) | Fraud involving credit cards, OTPs, SIM swapping, identity theft | Often overlaps when borrower used stolen credentials to borrow. |
| Data Privacy Act & NPC circulars | Regulate lending-app collection practices | Not about estafa thresholds, but a common counter-complaint by borrowers harassed by rogue collectors. |
3. The threshold brackets under Article 315 as amended by R.A. 10951
| Amount defrauded | Penalty (basic) | Length (range) | Effect if committed online (Sec. 6, R.A. 10175) |
|---|---|---|---|
| > ₱2,400,000 | Prisión mayor max → Reclusión temporal min | 10 yrs 1 day – 20 yrs | Raised one degree → Reclusión temporal max → Reclusión perpetua (20 yrs 1 day – 40 yrs) |
| ₱1,200,000 – 2,400,000 | Prisión mayor min → Prisión mayor med | 6 yrs 1 day – 10 yrs | Jumps to Prisión mayor max → Reclusión temporal min (8 yrs 1 day – 20 yrs) |
| ₱600,000 – 1,199,999 | Prisión correccional max → Prisión mayor min | 4 yrs 2 mos 1 day – 8 yrs | Goes up to Prisión mayor med → Prisión mayor max (8 yrs 1 day – 12 yrs) |
| ₱40,000 – 599,999 | Prisión correccional min → Prisión correccional max | 6 mos 1 day – 6 yrs | Upgraded to Prisión correccional max → Prisión mayor min (4 yrs 2 mos 1 day – 8 yrs) |
| ₱20,000 – 39,999 | Arresto mayor max | 4 mos 1 day – 6 mos | Becomes Prisión correccional min (6 mos 1 day – 2 yrs 4 mos) |
| ₱1 – 19,999 | Arresto mayor min–med | 1 mo 1 day – 4 mos | Jumps to Arresto mayor max – Prisión correccional min (4 mos 1 day – 2 yrs 4 mos) |
Notes
- Value = principal + interest actually defrauded, not the face amount of the contract.
- Fractions are resolved in favour of the accused (strict construction of penal laws).
- Where several acts form a continuing crime (e.g., multiple fraudulent loans via the same deceit), amounts are totalled.
4. Elements the prosecution must prove
- Deceit – false representation or fraudulent act prior to or simultaneous with the loan’s release.
- Reliance – lender relied on that representation.
- Damage – lender suffered actual loss equal to the unpaid amount.
- Causal link – deceit induced the lender to disburse.
Practical tip for complainants: Collect screenshots of the app journey, KYC data supplied, IP address logs, chat/email exchanges, delivery receipts of OTP-enabled disbursement, and CCTV footage of any physical pick-ups.
5. How “online” changes the landscape
| Issue | Brick-and-mortar loan | Online/app loan |
|---|---|---|
| Venue | Where the instrument was executed or payable | Any place where an element occurred or where any computer/ server involved is located (Sec. 21, R.A. 10175). |
| Penalty | Basic schedule in § 3 | Always one degree higher (cyber-estafa). |
| Prescriptive period | Starts from discovery of fraud | Still the same, but electronic timestamps make “discovery” earlier and easier to prove. |
| E-evidence | Optional | Vital; Rule 11 on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) applies. |
6. Typical fact patterns and the applicable crime
| Fact pattern | Crime (possible) | Threshold rule |
|---|---|---|
| Borrower uses stolen ID or deep-fake selfie to clear e-KYC, then absconds | Cyber-estafa (Art. 315 (2)(a) + Sec. 6, R.A. 10175); Identity theft (R.A. 10175 § 4(b)(3)) | Table § 3 determines penalty, then add one degree. |
| Borrower supplies legitimate ID but later refuses to pay | Civil case for sum of money; no estafa absent deceit | No threshold – no crime. |
| Borrower issues an electronic post-dated check (E-Check) that later bounces | Estafa Art. 315 (2)(d) and BP 22 (separate) | Amount dictates estafa penalty; BP 22 is always up to 1 yr jail + fine. |
| Borrower hacks lender’s API, inflates approved credit, then withdraws | Qualified theft (Art. 310) or Cyber-estafa depending on factual theory | Amount thresholds under Art. 308/309 or Art. 315 as amended. |
7. Procedure for filing a complaint
Draft an Affidavit-Complaint detailing:
- identities of parties;
- dates, amounts, mode of deceit;
- supporting e-evidence (logs, screenshots, metadata).
File with:
- The Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (regular estafa), or
- The DOJ Office of Cybercrime for cyber-estafa cases, often through the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) or NBI Cybercrime Division.
Pre-Investigation: submit reply & rejoinder.
Resolution & Information: if probable cause is found, an Information is filed in the proper RTC or MTC, depending on the amount/penalty.
8. Defences commonly raised by borrowers
- Absence of deceit – “I disclosed my true identity and capacity.”
- Novation – lender agreed to restructure or condone. (Not a bar to prosecution once estafa is consummated, but may negate deceit.)
- Payment or settlement – can extinguish civil liability but does not automatically erase criminal liability; however, complainants often move to withdraw for practical reasons.
- Data-privacy harassment – countersuit against lenders who vilify or “doxx” borrowers’ contacts; may pressure complainants to settle.
9. Prescriptive (statute-of-limitations) periods after R.A. 10951
| Penalty imposable (basic) | Prescriptive period § 90 RPC |
|---|---|
| Reclusión temporal or higher | 20 years |
| Prisión mayor | 15 years |
| Prisión correccional | 10 years |
| Arresto mayor or fine | 5 years |
Prescription stops when the Information is filed. For cyber-estafa, use the higher penalty (one-degree-higher) to find the corresponding period.
10. Related regulatory angles
- SEC MC No. 19-19 – registration of Online Lending Companies; violation can lead to closure, but does not affect estafa suits.
- BSP Circular 1133 (2021) – BNPL and digital-lending prudential rules; again, purely regulatory.
- NPC’s 2022 “Guidelines on Online Lending Apps” – protects borrowers from intrusive collection; evidence from privacy rulings can bolster or weaken an estafa complaint.
11. Practical compliance tips for lenders
- Robust e-KYC (anti-spoofing, liveness checks).
- Automated fraud-scoring – flag large first-time withdrawals over ₱100k; gather stronger identity proofs.
- Digital audit trail – immutable logs, blockchain timestamping, separate cold storage for logs (for court admissibility under Rule 5, e-Rules on Evidence).
- Early-warning teams – treat sudden disconnect + mass logout from the borrower’s registered device as a trigger to file a hold-order with payment partners.
12. Key jurisprudence (selected)
| Case | G.R. No. | Ratio relevant to online loans |
|---|---|---|
| Ching v. People | 2001-102279-83 | Mere failure to pay without deceit is civil, not estafa. |
| People v. Valencia | L-19658 (1966) | Estafa consummated once lender parted with money; payment later is immaterial. |
| People v. Gonzales | G.R. 200671 (2016) | Cyber-estafa conviction affirmed; Sec. 6 penalty upgrade applied. |
| People v. Erlinda et al. (Carousell fraud) | CA-G.R. CR-HC 11178 (2023) | Fake ID + online marketplace = deceit; one-degree-higher penalty sustained. |
(No Supreme Court case squarely on unpaid loan-app estafa yet, but lower-court convictions mirror the principles above.)
13. Checklist for complainants & investigators
- Documentary loan agreement / screenshot of in-app contract
- Proof of funds transfer (bank receipt, e-wallet log)
- Complete borrower onboarding data (ID images, live selfie, address)
- System access logs showing borrower IP/device ID at time of transaction
- Demand letters and unread messages (to show opportunity to pay)
- Affidavit of company custodian of records (for authenticity of e-evidence)
14. Bottom-line guidance
- Thresholds matter only for penalty and prescription – not for determining whether estafa exists.
- For genuine online-lending defaults with no deceit, file a civil case or use small-claims/Barangay Justice if ≤ ₱200k.
- For fraudulent loan-app abuse, build an estafa (or cyber-estafa) case, match the amount to the R.A. 10951 brackets, then remember the penalty jumps one degree higher under R.A. 10175.
- Always preserve digital evidence early; the window to obtain cyber-warrants is tight, and data-retention by telcos is only six months (Sec. 13, R.A. 10175 & IRR).
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a lawyer for an opinion tailored to the specifics of your case.