Estafa (swindling) is one of the most commonly charged crimes in the Philippines, especially in family disputes involving money, property, or broken financial trusts. However, Philippine law contains a unique and absolute exemption from criminal liability when estafa is committed between certain close family members. This exemption is found in Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and represents a deliberate policy choice that prioritizes family solidarity over criminal prosecution in specific cases.

This article exhaustively explains the law, jurisprudence, limitations, exceptions, and practical consequences of attempting to file estafa against a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or other qualified relative.

1. What Constitutes Estafa Under Philippine Law?

Estafa is defined and punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The crime is committed in three general modes:

a. Estafa with abuse of confidence (Art. 315, par. 1)

Misappropriation or conversion of money, goods, or property received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to return or deliver the same.
Taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank.
Classic example: A family member borrows money with a promise to invest it, then uses it for personal purposes without intent to return.

b. Estafa by means of deceit (Art. 315, par. 2)

False pretenses or fraudulent representations (e.g., postdating a check knowing there are no funds, fraudulent inducement to sign a document, resort to simulated contracts, etc.).

c. Estafa through fraudulent means (Art. 315, par. 3)

Less common in family cases (e.g., inducing someone to sign a document by pretending it is for a different purpose).

Penalties range from arresto mayor to reclusion temporal, depending on the amount involved (see penalty table in Art. 315). The penalty increases proportionally with the value defrauded.

2. The Absolute Exemption Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code

Article 332 expressly provides:

“No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling (estafa), or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:

Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;

The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and

Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.”

This exemption is absolute and jurisdictional. Once the relationship is established, the State loses the right to prosecute the offender criminally for estafa (or theft or malicious mischief).

Relatives Absolutely Covered (No Additional Conditions)

Legitimate or illegitimate ascendants and descendants (parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren)
Spouses (legal marriage; does not apply to live-in partners or annulled marriages)
Relatives by affinity in the same line (father-in-law/mother-in-law, son-in-law/daughter-in-law)
Adopted children and adopting parents (jurisprudence treats them as within the exemption – People v. Constantino, G.R. No. L-5826, 1954)

Relatives Conditionally Covered

Brothers and sisters (full or half-blood)
Brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law

→ These are covered only if they are living together at the time of the commission of the crime.

Relatives NOT Covered (Exemption Does NOT Apply)

Cousins (any degree)
Uncles/aunts and nephews/nieces
Step-parents and step-children (unless legally adopted)
Live-in partners or common-law spouses
Ex-spouses (after finality of decree of divorce or annulment)
Separated spouses (de facto separation does not remove the exemption; legal separation or annulment is required)

3. Scope and Nature of the Exemption

Applies to all forms of estafa under Article 315 RPC, regardless of amount, circumstance, or mode of commission.
Applies even if the estafa is qualified (grave abuse of confidence) or syndicated (if still under RPC).
Exemption is personal to the offender – if a stranger participates (e.g., sibling uses a non-relative to help misappropriate), the relative offender remains exempt, but the stranger is fully liable.
Exemption covers principals, accomplices, and accessories who are within the privileged relationship.
The exemption is raised at any stage of the proceedings – even on appeal (People v. Suarez, G.R. No. L-11155, 1958).
Prosecutors are duty-bound to dismiss the criminal complaint once the relationship is shown (DOJ Circulars and consistent Supreme Court rulings).

4. What Happens When a Family Member Files an Estafa Complaint Anyway?

Despite the exemption, many complainants still file with the prosecutor or barangay. The usual sequence:

Complaint is filed (usually with supporting affidavits, promissory notes, demand letters).
Respondent submits counter-affidavit and proof of relationship (birth certificates, marriage contract, etc.).
Prosecutor issues resolution dismissing the criminal complaint on the ground of Article 332.
Complainant may file Motion for Reconsideration (almost always denied).
Appeal to DOJ (almost always denied).
Petition for review under Rule 43 to Court of Appeals (almost always denied).
Rule 65 petition to Supreme Court (almost never succeeds on this issue).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Article 332 embodies a public policy of preserving family unity and preventing the spectacle of family members prosecuting each other for these property crimes.

5. Civil Liability Remains Fully Enforceable

The phrase “only civil liability” in Article 332 means the offended party retains the right to recover the money or property through civil action.

Available civil remedies:

Separate civil action for collection of sum of money with damages (Rule 2, Rules of Court)
Civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal case (but since criminal is dismissed early, civil aspect is usually pursued separately)
Action for specific performance, rescission, annulment, accounting, partition, reconveyance, etc., depending on the transaction
Attachment or preliminary injunction may be obtained to prevent dissipation of assets

Prescription of the civil action: 10 years from discovery of the fraud (Art. 1144, Civil Code) or 4 years for quasi-delict.

6. Important Exceptions: When Family Relationship Does NOT Exempt from Criminal Liability

Situation	Exemption Applies?	Reason
Estafa under Article 315 RPC (any mode)	YES	Covered by Art. 332
Violation of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)	NO	Special penal law; exemption applies only to RPC crimes (Wong v. CA, G.R. No. 117857, 2002; Tan v. People, G.R. No. 135904, 2003)
Estafa under P.D. 1689 (Syndicated Estafa)	NO	Special law
Estafa under Trust Receipts Law (P.D. 115)	NO	Special law (Ng v. People, G.R. No. 173905, 2010)
Estafa through falsification of public document	NO (for the falsification part)	Complex crime; falsification is not covered by Art. 332
Estafa under Securities Regulation Code (large-scale investment scams)	NO	Special law
Online estafa under Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175)	Generally NO	Considered under special law when charged as such

Thus, if a family member issues a bouncing check, the complainant can file both B.P. 22 (which will prosper) and estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) (which will be dismissed because of Art. 332). Prosecutors routinely dismiss only the estafa charge while proceeding with B.P. 22.

7. Practical Advice for Complainants and Defense Counsel

For Complainants (victims):

Do not waste time and money pursuing the criminal estafa case if the offender is within Article 332 relatives.
Go straight to civil court for collection.
If the transaction involves a check, file B.P. 22 immediately (prescription is 4 years).
Consider mediation through the barangay or the Public Attorney’s Office before litigation.

For Defense Counsel:

Raise Article 332 at the earliest possible stage (preferably in the counter-affidavit).
Attach certified true copies of NSO/PSA birth certificates, marriage contracts, or CENOMAR as needed.
Move for immediate dismissal to avoid unnecessary trial.

Conclusion

Philippine law draws a clear, bright line: close family members are exempt from criminal prosecution for estafa under the Revised Penal Code, no matter how egregious the betrayal feels. The State considers family harmony more important than criminal punishment in these cases. Victims are left with full civil remedies — which are often faster and more effective anyway, since the goal is usually recovery of money rather than imprisonment of a relative.

While emotionally difficult, this legal policy has stood for over ninety years and shows no sign of changing. Complainants who insist on criminal prosecution despite the exemption almost invariably fail, wasting time, money, and emotional energy that would be better spent on a well-prepared civil collection suit.