Filing an Estafa Case for a Real‑Estate Scam in the Philippines
(A comprehensive, practitioner‑style guide)
1. Introduction
Real‑estate fraud is one of the most common contexts in which estafa (swindling) is prosecuted in the Philippines. Whether the scheme involves a fictitious subdivision, a double sale of the same parcel, or the misappropriation of buyers’ payments, estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) remains the principal criminal remedy—often pursued alongside special laws such as Presidential Decree 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree), the Maceda Law (RA 6552), and the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22). This article gathers, in one place, everything victims, lawyers, brokers, and investors need to know—from defining the crime, to gathering evidence, to navigating prosecution and sentencing.
2. Legal Basis: Estafa Under Article 315, RPC
Under the RPC, estafa may be committed by deceit or by abuse of confidence. In real‑estate scams the two most invoked modes are:
| Mode & Paragraph | Essential Conduct | Typical Real‑Estate Application |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 315 §1(b) (misappropriation) | Receiving money/property in trust and converting or misapplying it to the prejudice of the owner | Developer or broker pockets reservation/down‑payments instead of remitting to seller or project |
| Art. 315 §2(a) (false pretenses) | Using fictitious name, pretending qualifications, or making fraudulent representations prior to or at the time of transaction | Developer advertises a non‑existent project; broker pretends to have authority to sell; seller conceals an earlier sale or lien |
Elements (simplified):
- Deceit or abuse of confidence (intent to defraud)
- Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation
- Causal connection between deceit/abuse and the prejudice suffered
3. Penalties After RA 10951 (2017 update)
Penalties now scale with the amount defrauded (amounts include the value of property, money, or benefit):
| Amount Defrauded | Penalty Range* | Court of Trial** |
|---|---|---|
| ≤ ₱ 500,000 | Prisión correccional max (4 yrs 2 mos‑6 yrs) to prisión mayor min (6‑8 yrs) | MTC/MTCC (if max imposable ≤ 6 yrs) |
| ₱ > 500,000 – ≤ 1,200,000 | Prisión mayor min‑med (6‑12 yrs) | RTC |
| ₱ > 1.2 M – ≤ 2.4 M | Prisión mayor med‑max (8‑14 yrs 8 mos) | RTC |
| ₱ > 2.4 M – ≤ 8.8 M | Prisión mayor max to reclusión temporal min (12‑17 yrs 4 mos) | RTC |
| ₱ > 8.8 M | Reclusión temporal max (17 yrs 4 mos‑20 yrs) to reclusión perpetua | RTC |
* Article 315 fixes the maximum; courts may impose the minimum within the same penalty bracket based on mitigating/aggravating circumstances. ** Criminal jurisdiction follows Rule 110 & RA 11576 (2021).
Prescription: Crimes penalized by prisión mayor or higher prescribe in 15 years; those punishable by prisión correccional prescribe in 10 years (RPC Arts. 90‑91).
4. Common Real‑Estate Scam Patterns
| Scheme | Red Flags | Typical Provision Invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Ghost subdivision/condominium | No DHSUD/HLURB License to Sell; grandiose pre‑selling ads; pressure tactics | Art 315 §2(a); also PD 957 (administrative) |
| Double sale | Same lot sold to several buyers; fake titles; long unexplained delays in title transfer | Art 315 §2(a); overlap with Art 154 RPC (falsification) |
| Equity/payment siphoning | Developer diverts buyers’ amortizations; project stalls | Art 315 §1(b) |
| Unauthorized broker/agent | “Colorum” agents not licensed under RESA Law (RA 9646) | Art 315 §2(a); RESA administrative liability |
5. Step‑by‑Step Filing Guide
Verify & Gather Evidence
- Certified true copy of the title (TCT/CCT)
- Reservation agreements, contracts to sell, official receipts
- Advertising materials, emails, SMS, chat logs
- DHSUD certification (license to sell or lack thereof)
- SEC or DTI registration of the developer/broker
- Sworn statements from other victims (if any)
Demand Letter (Optional but Strategic)
- Send a notarized demand for refund/fulfillment—establishes demand element where misappropriation is alleged and may spur settlement.
Execute an Affidavit‑Complaint
- State facts chronologically; identify all respondents; attach evidence.
- Notarize and prepare at least three sets (prosecutor, respondent, complainant).
File with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor
- Venue: where any element of the offense occurred (often where payment was made or deceit perpetrated).
- Pay filing fee (nominal).
- The prosecutor dockets the case and issues subpoena for counter‑affidavits.
Preliminary Investigation
- 15 days for respondents to submit counter‑affidavits (+ extensions).
- Reply/Rejoinder at prosecutor’s discretion.
- Clarificatory hearing if needed.
- Resolution: dismissal or finding of probable cause (Information drafted).
Filing of Information & Bail
- Information is filed in the proper trial court.
- Bail is a matter of right if imposable penalty ≤ reclusión temporal min (i.e., most estafa cases); amount set via DOJ/SC guidelines, often equal to the amount defrauded (subject to court’s discretion).
Arraignment & Pre‑Trial
- Within 30 days of court’s receipt of case.
- Enter plea; marking of exhibits; possible plea‑bargaining.
Trial Proper
- Prosecution evidence → Demurrer to Evidence → Defense evidence → Memoranda.
- Duration depends on court docket; SC’s continuous trial guidelines aim for 180‑day completion but complex real‑estate fraud may run longer.
Judgment, Restitution, Civil Liability
- Conviction automatically carries civil indemnity equal to amount defrauded plus interest.
- Sheriff may levy properties; victims may also file or continue a separate civil action for rescission, specific performance, or damages.
6. Coordinating with Other Government Agencies
| Agency | Why Coordinate | How It Helps |
|---|---|---|
| DHSUD / HLURB (now adjudicatory arm) | Licensing, registration, cease‑and‑desist orders, refund orders | Administrative sanctions; strengthens criminal case |
| SEC | Fraud involving unregistered real‑estate investment schemes | Possible RA 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) violation |
| NBI Anti‑Fraud | Complex or syndicated large‑scale scams | Parallel investigation; subpoenas for bank/phone records |
| PNP‑CIDG | Field arrests when warrants issue; nationwide manhunt | Locating fugitive developers/brokers |
7. Parallel or Alternative Causes of Action
- Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) – if the scammer issued dishonored checks as reimbursements.
- PD 957, Secs. 23‑24 – criminal liability for developers who sell without a license or fail to complete the project; penalty up to 20 years.
- Civil Case for Reconveyance or Annulment of Sale – often filed with RTC’s special Commercial Courts if title issues arise.
- Writ of Preliminary Attachment – to secure assets during the pendency of either civil or criminal action.
8. Defenses Typically Raised by Accused
- Good‑faith belief in authority or ownership
- Absence of deceit (transaction merely collapsed, civil breach)
- Novation or settlement (may mitigate but does not extinguish criminal liability once fraud consummated)
- Lack of demand in §1(b) misappropriation (though demand can be written, oral, or implied)
- Prescription (rarely successful due to 10‑ or 15‑year periods)
9. Illustrative Case Law (selected)
| Citation | Gist | Take‑Away |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Balasa (G.R. 212664, 2020) | Developer sold units without license; conviction affirmed | License‑to‑sell is a material fact; hiding it is deceit |
| Spouses Abalos v. CA (G.R. 145755, 2005) | Double sale; civil suit does not bar estafa | Civil and criminal actions may proceed independently |
| People v. Go (G.R. 194338, 2014) | Return of money post‑filing does not erase liability | Restitution is mitigating at sentencing, not an acquittal |
10. Practical Tips for Victims & Counsel
- Do background checks: verify TCT/CCT with Registry of Deeds; confirm DHSUD license.
- Document every payment: insist on official receipts and bank transfers.
- Move quickly: preserve text messages, emails, social‑media chats before accounts disappear.
- Organize victims: multiple complainants reinforce probable cause and deter amicable “divide‑and‑conquer” tactics.
- Consider civil and administrative tracks in parallel to freeze assets and obtain refunds faster.
11. Conclusion
Filing an estafa case is time‑consuming but remains the most potent weapon against real‑estate scammers. A well‑prepared affidavit‑complaint, anchored on solid documentary proof and supported by parallel regulatory action, not only increases the odds of conviction but also pressures fraudsters to make restitution. Victims should act within prescriptive periods, coordinate with specialized agencies, and seek competent counsel familiar with both criminal procedure and property law.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and jurisprudence evolve; consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for advice on specific situations.