1) “Fraud” in Philippine criminal law: it’s usually Estafa (and related offenses)

In everyday speech, “fraud” covers scams, swindling, deception, and trickery. In Philippine criminal law, those acts are most commonly prosecuted as:

Estafa (Swindling) under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 315, and related provisions (Articles 316–318);
B.P. Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) when checks are used;
Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) when committed through ICT (online, social media, email, apps);
Access Devices Regulation Act (R.A. 8484) for credit-card/access-device fraud;
Falsification/forgery offenses under the RPC when fake documents, IDs, or records are used;
Syndicated Estafa under P.D. 1689 for large-scale “public” scams by a group.

A single scheme can trigger multiple charges (e.g., online investment scam = Estafa + R.A. 10175, or Estafa + P.D. 1689 if syndicated).

2) The backbone concept: Deceit + Damage

Across most fraud-type prosecutions, two ideas recur:

Deceit/Fraudulent act (panlilinlang): misrepresentation, false pretense, abuse of trust, concealment, manipulation, or a dishonest act; and
Damage/Prejudice: the victim parts with money/property/rights or suffers loss.

A major practical dividing line:

Criminal fraud (Estafa) generally involves deceit at the start (or abuse of confidence) and resulting damage; while
Pure breach of contract often involves non-performance without proof that the accused intended to defraud from the beginning.

Courts look closely at intent and the timing of deception.

3) Estafa under RPC Article 315: the main categories and their elements

Article 315 is commonly grouped into three “buckets.” You don’t need to memorize the text; what matters is matching the facts to the elements.

A. Estafa by abuse of confidence / unfaithfulness

This covers situations where the offender lawfully receives money/property but later misappropriates it.

Typical fact patterns:

Agent/collector receives money “for remittance” but keeps it
Seller receives items “on consignment” but doesn’t return or pay
Money given “in trust,” “for administration,” “for a specific purpose,” or with an obligation “to deliver or return,” then diverted

Core elements (common formulation):

The accused received money/goods/property in trust, on commission, for administration, or under an obligation to deliver/return;
The accused misappropriated, converted, or denied receipt of it (treating it as their own or using it inconsistently with the purpose);
The misappropriation/conversion caused prejudice to another; and
A demand for return/remittance is often important evidence (and in many cases is strongly advisable), though litigation can turn on specific facts.

Practical notes:

A written agreement helps, but is not strictly required if you can prove the trust/obligation and the purpose.
Your evidence should show the accused was not supposed to treat the funds as their own.

B. Estafa by false pretenses / fraudulent acts

This covers scenarios where the accused lies or performs fraudulent acts so the victim hands over money/property.

Typical fact patterns:

“I’m an authorized agent/broker” (but isn’t)
Fake investment opportunities, fake jobs, fake charity drives
Selling something that doesn’t exist or will never be delivered
“I have the item/slot/permit/approval” when they don’t
Using a fictitious name, fake credentials, fake documents, fake screenshots

Core elements (common formulation):

The accused made a false pretense/representation (or did a fraudulent act) before or at the time the victim parted with money/property;
The victim relied on it;
Because of that reliance, the victim gave money/property/rights; and
The victim suffered damage/prejudice.

Practical notes:

The lie must be tied to a past or existing fact or a deceitful circumstance that induced payment (not just a broken promise).
Show what was said, when it was said, and why you believed it.

C. Estafa through other fraudulent means

This includes certain specific fraudulent methods (e.g., inducing someone to sign a document through trickery, or other deceitful practices recognized by the RPC).

These cases are fact-specific; the key is to show the fraudulent method and resulting damage.

4) Other RPC provisions often involved in fraud cases

A. Article 316 (Other forms of swindling)

Commonly invoked in property/real-estate related fraud, such as:

Disposing of property as though one owns it (when one doesn’t),
Concealing encumbrances or limitations in certain transactions,
Certain fraudulent conveyances.

Real-estate scams frequently involve Estafa (Art. 315/316) plus falsification.

B. Article 318 (Other deceits)

Catches certain deceitful acts that don’t neatly fit Article 315 but still amount to criminal deception.

C. Falsification / Forgery (RPC)

If fake documents are used—IDs, receipts, deeds, contracts, clearances, certifications—prosecutors may file:

Falsification of public/official documents (generally graver),
Falsification of private documents, or
Use of falsified documents.

Fraud schemes commonly become:

Estafa, or
Estafa through falsification, or
Separate counts for falsification + estafa depending on the acts and evidence.

5) Special laws commonly used for “fraud” scenarios

A. B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

B.P. 22 punishes issuing a check that is dishonored due to insufficient funds/credit (and related circumstances). It is separate from Estafa, though the same check transaction can lead to both charges depending on facts.

Key practical requirements:

You must usually be able to prove dishonor (bank return/memo) and written notice of dishonor to the drawer.
A common statutory presumption of knowledge arises when the drawer fails to pay/arrange payment within a short period after notice (often discussed as five banking days). Because B.P. 22 cases are technical, preserve your notices and proof of receipt carefully.

When to consider B.P. 22:

The transaction involved payment by check, especially for a pre-existing obligation or purchase, and the check bounced.

B. P.D. 1689 (Syndicated Estafa)

This is a harsh enhancement when:

Estafa or related swindling is committed by a syndicate (commonly understood as a group of five or more)
formed with intent to defraud, and
the scheme targets the public (not just a single private dispute).

These cases often arise from “investment” scams, pyramiding-like solicitations, and mass victimization events.

C. R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act)

If fraud is committed through ICT (online platforms, messaging apps, email, websites), this law can apply through offenses such as:

Computer-related fraud and related cyber offenses;
Identity theft in certain circumstances;
Other computer-related acts supporting the scheme.

Cyber-related facts also affect:

Where to report,
How to preserve evidence, and
Potentially penalty treatment when crimes are committed via ICT.

D. R.A. 8484 (Access Devices Regulation Act)

Applies to credit card/access device fraud: unauthorized use, possession of counterfeit access devices, skimming, and related acts.

E. Securities/investment fraud (Securities Regulation Code and SEC rules)

If the scheme involves investments, “guaranteed returns,” pooled funds, “trading bots,” “forex/crypto” solicitations, or sale of securities without proper registration/authority, there may be:

criminal and administrative exposure under the securities framework, and
parallel action with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (e.g., for enforcement, advisories, and administrative cases).

F. Anti-Money Laundering (R.A. 9160, as amended)

Victims don’t typically “file an AMLA case” directly as their main complaint, but in large schemes, laundering of proceeds can be pursued by the State, and AML processes can be relevant to fund tracing.

6) Common fraud scenarios and the likely legal labels

Online selling scam (non-delivery / bogus seller)

Common charges: Estafa (false pretenses); potentially R.A. 10175 if ICT-based.

“Investment” scam / guaranteed returns / recruitment to invest

Common charges: Estafa; potentially Syndicated Estafa (P.D. 1689); securities violations; cybercrime angles if online.

“I’ll process your loan/visa/job” scam

Possible charges: Estafa; sometimes other special laws depending on the subject (e.g., recruitment-related offenses where applicable).

Agent/employee collects money for remittance then disappears

Common charge: Estafa (abuse of confidence / misappropriation).

Fraud using checks

Possible charges: B.P. 22 and/or Estafa depending on the deceit and circumstances.

Identity phishing / account takeover / e-wallet drain

Potential charges: R.A. 10175 (computer-related offenses), possibly Estafa, R.A. 8484 if access devices involved, and others depending on facts.

7) Evidence: what prosecutors look for (and how to preserve it)

At the prosecutor level, the question is usually probable cause, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Still, your complaint must be organized and supported.

A. Core documents

Proof of payment: receipts, deposit slips, transfer confirmations, transaction IDs, bank/e-wallet records
Contracts, agreements, booking forms, order forms
IDs, business pages, ads, profiles used in the scheme
Demand letters and proof of delivery/receipt (especially useful in misappropriation and check cases)
Bank dishonor documents (for checks), written notice of dishonor, proof of receipt

B. Messages and online evidence

Save complete chat threads (not just selected screenshots)
Export conversations where possible
Capture URLs, usernames, phone numbers, email addresses, account IDs
Keep files in original form (don’t repeatedly re-save compressed screenshots)
Note dates/times, including the device used and how you obtained the evidence

Philippine rules recognize electronic evidence, but the weight of screenshots improves when you can present:

context (full thread),
consistency (timestamps/handles),
corroboration (transaction records), and
a clear affidavit explaining how the evidence was produced.

C. Witnesses

If others were present during the transaction or communications (or are co-victims), their sworn statements can strengthen your case.

8) Where to file: choosing the right office

A. For criminal prosecution (Estafa, falsification, etc.)

Office of the City Prosecutor / Provincial Prosecutor where the offense was committed (venue can be fact-dependent).

You may also report to law enforcement for assistance in investigation:

PNP (local station)
NBI (especially for larger or cross-jurisdiction schemes)

B. For online/cyber-enabled fraud

In addition to (or before) the prosecutor, consider reporting to:

PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG), and/or
NBI Cybercrime Division (or cybercrime units)

These offices can help with preservation requests, technical tracing, and proper documentation.

C. For investment/corporate solicitations

Parallel reporting may be appropriate to:

SEC (investment solicitations, unregistered securities, corporate actors)

D. For bank/e-wallet consumer issues

Parallel reporting may be appropriate to:

the bank/e-wallet’s fraud channel first (to block or trace where possible), and
regulators depending on the institution type (commonly BSP for supervised financial institutions).

Parallel regulatory/administrative complaints do not replace a criminal complaint, but they can help with documentation and consumer remedies.

9) How to file a criminal complaint (step-by-step)

Step 1: Organize your timeline and identify the proper respondents

Prepare a clear chronology:

Who said what, when, and where
What you paid or delivered
What you received (if anything)
How you discovered the fraud
What demands you made and the responses

Identify:

Full names/aliases, addresses, phone numbers, emails, social media handles
For businesses: business name, address, responsible officers if known

If identity is unclear, you can still report with the identifiers you have (handles, account numbers, numbers), but prosecutions are stronger once a real person is identified.

Step 2: Send a demand letter when appropriate

For many fraud patterns, a demand letter is not legally required, but it can be powerful evidence—especially for:

misappropriation/abuse of confidence scenarios, and
check-related cases (where statutory notice is crucial).

Send via a method you can prove (personal service with acknowledgment, courier with tracking, registered mail, or other provable means).

Step 3: Draft an Affidavit-Complaint

This is the standard form of a complaint filed with the prosecutor.

A practical structure:

Title: “Affidavit-Complaint”
Parties: your details; respondent’s details (as complete as possible)
Narration of facts (chronological, numbered paragraphs)
Specific fraudulent acts (quote or describe representations and attach proof)
Damage (amount lost, property not returned, consequential prejudice)
Evidence list (as Annexes)
Legal designation (e.g., “Estafa under Article 315,” “B.P. 22,” “R.A. 10175,” etc.—you may list alternatives if unsure)
Prayer (request preliminary investigation and filing of information)
Verification/Jurat (signed and notarized)

Attach evidence as Annex “A,” “B,” “C,” etc., and refer to them in the narration.

Step 4: File with the Prosecutor’s Office

Submit:

Notarized affidavit-complaint
Supporting annexes (often in multiple sets/copies depending on respondents)
Valid ID copies and any office-required forms

The office will docket the complaint and assign it for preliminary investigation (for cases requiring it).

Step 5: Preliminary Investigation process (what to expect)

Typically:

The prosecutor issues a subpoena to the respondent with your complaint and annexes.
Respondent submits a counter-affidavit and evidence.
You may be allowed a reply-affidavit.
The prosecutor may set a clarificatory hearing (not always).
The prosecutor issues a resolution finding probable cause (or dismissing).
If probable cause is found, an Information is filed in court.

Step 6: After the Information is filed in court

Key points:

The court may issue a warrant of arrest depending on rules and the judge’s evaluation of probable cause.
Bail may be available depending on the offense/penalty.
The criminal case proceeds through arraignment, pre-trial, trial, and judgment.

10) Katarungang Pambarangay (Barangay conciliation): when it matters

For certain disputes between individuals residing in the same locality, barangay conciliation may be a pre-condition before filing in court. However, there are important exceptions (including based on the nature of the offense, penalty level, parties, and other statutory exclusions). Because fraud complaints can vary widely in penalty exposure and context, check whether your situation falls under mandatory conciliation or an exception before filing—especially if the parties live in the same city/municipality.

11) Civil recovery alongside (or instead of) criminal filing

A criminal fraud case can carry civil liability (restitution/damages) as part of the criminal action, but collection can still be difficult. Depending on facts, victims also consider:

Separate civil action for collection/damages,
Actions affecting specific property (e.g., recovery of a particular item),
Provisional remedies in civil cases (fact-dependent and often counsel-driven).

Criminal prosecution focuses on punishment; recovery depends on the offender’s traceable assets and enforceability.

12) Practical pitfalls to avoid

Do not rely on “breach of contract” facts alone—highlight the deception/abuse of trust and show it was present at inception (or show the trust obligation and misappropriation).
Preserve original evidence early; don’t overwrite phones/accounts if possible.
Avoid public accusations that could create exposure to defamation-related complaints; keep reporting within proper channels.
Don’t pay “fixers.” Work through official offices and documented processes.

13) Quick guide: what to file, where

Non-delivery online sale / bogus seller → Estafa; report to Prosecutor; cyber units if online
Misappropriation of funds held in trust → Estafa (abuse of confidence); Prosecutor
Bounced check → B.P. 22 (and possibly Estafa); Prosecutor; preserve notice of dishonor
Investment solicitation targeting many victims → Estafa; possibly P.D. 1689; report also to SEC
Phishing/account takeover → R.A. 10175 angles; report to cyber units + Prosecutor
Credit card/access-device misuse → R.A. 8484; Prosecutor; coordinate with bank/card issuer