*This in-depth guide is written for laypersons and junior practitioners who need a solid, practice-oriented understanding of estafa under Philippine law. It is not a substitute for professional advice. Citations are to the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the Rules of Court, and leading Supreme Court decisions up to May 2025.*
1. Statutory Basis
| Provision | Caption | What it Covers |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 315, RPC | Swindling (Estafa) | Four principal modes (¶ 1-4) of deceit or abuse of confidence causing damage to another. |
| Art. 316, RPC | Other Forms of Swindling | Ancillary acts such as conveying encumbered property as free, or removing mortgaged personalty. |
| Art. 318, RPC | Other Deceits | Catch-all for frauds not fitting Art. 315/316. |
| Art. 332, RPC | Exemption from criminal liability | Estafa committed between certain relatives is only a civil liability. |
| Batas Pambansa 22 | The Bouncing Checks Law | Issuance of a worthless check is a separate public offense; the same act may, or may not, be estafa. |
2. Why “Grounds” Matter
A complainant must plead and prove every element of estafa that corresponds to a specific paragraph of Art. 315. Misclassification can doom a case outright.
3. The Four Principal Modes of Estafa (Art. 315)
3.1 ¶ 1: With abuse of confidence
| ¶ 1-(b) | Misappropriation or conversion of money, goods, or any personal property received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to deliver or return. | | ¶ 1-(c) | Taking false advantage of a fiduciary relationship (e.g., hotel, warehouse, factoring contracts). |
Elements
- Money/property received in trust or on commission, etc.;
- Obligation to deliver/return exists;
- Misappropriation or conversion by the accused, or denial of receipt;
- Prejudice or damage to another capable of pecuniary estimation.
Practice notes
- Any demand, even oral, creates a prima facie presumption of misappropriation (People v. Locson, G.R. L-17492, Mar 25 1922; still followed).
- A corporate officer who diverts company funds to personal use can be liable even if title to funds was in the corporation.
3.2 ¶ 2: By false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud
| Variant | Common scenarios |
|---|---|
| ¶ 2-(a) | Posing as a licensed professional or forging authority. |
| ¶ 2-(b) | Using fictitious name or pretending to possess power, credit, or imaginary property. |
| ¶ 2-(d) | Issuing a post-dated check knowing of insufficiency of funds and the check is not paid on presentment. |
Elements
- False pretense prior to or concurrent with the transaction;
- The false pretense induces the victim to part with money or property;
- Reliance and damage.
3.3 ¶ 3: Through fraudulent means of defrauding by removing, concealing, or destroying encumbrances on real or personal property sold.
3.4 ¶ 4: By fraud in gambling or fraudulent taking of property in game of chance.
4. Comparing Estafa with Related Offenses
| Offense | What distinguishes it from Estafa |
|---|---|
| Theft (Art. 308) | Taking is without consent from the start. In estafa, possession is lawful at inception. |
| BP 22 | Strict-liability, no need to prove deceit or damage; intent may matter only for sentencing. |
| Qualified Theft | If committed by a domestic servant or with grave abuse of confidence and taking was already felonious at the moment of acquisition. |
| Securities fraud (SRC) | Governed by special laws; the modus may also be estafa if elements concur. |
5. Filing an Estafa Complaint
Gather Proof of Each Element
- Receipts, contracts, emails, text messages, bounced checks, ledger entries.
- Proof of demand (registered-mail return card, chat logs, notarized letter).
Draft a Verified Affidavit-Complaint
- Identify the exact paragraph of Art. 315.
- Attach evidence in numbered annexes.
- Valuation of damage must be in Philippine pesos on date of filing.
Venue
- Generally, where any element occurred (People v. Yap, G.R. L-61763, Mar 19 1985).
- For misappropriation, venue lies where demand is made and not complied with.
Jurisdiction by Amount (Sec. 32(1), Batas Pambansa 129 as amended)
Amount defrauded Court of original jurisdiction ≤ ₱2 million Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court > ₱2 million Regional Trial Court Filing Steps
- File with Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation.
- Pay docket fee (nominal).
- Prosecution issues subpoena for respondent’s counter-affidavit.
6. Penalties and Prescription
| Amount defrauded | Penalty (Art. 315, as amended by R.A. 10951) | Maximum term governs prescriptive period (Art. 90) |
|---|---|---|
| ≤ ₱40,000 | Arresto mayor to prision correccional max. | 10 years |
| > ₱40,000 to ₱1.2 M | Prision correccional max. to prision mayor min. | 15 years |
| > ₱1.2 M to ₱2.4 M | Prision correccional max. to prision mayor med. | 15 years |
| > ₱2.4 M | Prision mayor max. to reclusion temporal min. | 15 years |
- Civil liability is equal to the amount defrauded plus legal interest (Art. 100, RPC).
- Probation is available where the penalty actually imposed does not exceed 6 years, subject to other qualifiers.
7. Defenses
| Defense | Key doctrines |
|---|---|
| Good faith | Honest belief in a right to the money rebuts intent to defraud (People v. Miranda, G.R. 214049, Feb 5 2020). |
| Novation | Only extinguishes civil liability; it does not bar criminal action unless approved before the filing of the complaint. |
| Error in amount/valuation | At best mitigates penalty but rarely an absolute defense. |
| Family relationship (Art. 332) | Applies only when offender and offended party are spouses, ascendants, descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line, but not when public interest demands prosecution (e.g., corporate funds). |
8. Practical Tips for Complainants
- Demand in writing even if not required—creates presumption of misappropriation.
- Time-stamp everything (registered mail or e-mail with read receipts).
- Compute interest up to last date of demand; courts rarely award future interest beyond filing.
- Consider BP 22 as an alternative or additional charge: it is easier to prove and compels settlement.
9. Practical Tips for Respondents
- Document all liquidations immediately upon receipt of trust funds.
- Offer restitution early—mitigates penalty or may ground a plea to a lesser offense.
- Preserve electronic records (bank logs, chats) to show absence of deceit.
- Raise improper venue or paragraph mismatch at the earliest opportunity; failure may waive the objection.
10. Selected Leading Cases
| Case | G.R. No. & Date | Take-away |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Sevilla | 0506, Mar 12 1903 | First comprehensive definition of estafa. |
| People v. Locson | L-17492, Mar 25 1922 | Demand as evidence of misappropriation. |
| People v. Go | 104312, Sept 17 1993 | Distinction between estafa and BP 22; same act may be both. |
| Ching v. People | 164279, Feb 15 2012 | Novation does not erase criminal liability. |
| Miranda v. People | 214049, Feb 5 2020 | Good-faith defense and fiduciary relationships. |
11. Checklist for Counsel
- Identify paragraph of Art. 315.
- Satisfy both deceit/abuse and damage.
- Confirm venue and amount for jurisdiction.
- Verify prescriptive period (15 yrs from discovery; arrests interrupt).
- Always attach proof of demand.
- Evaluate civil compromise possibilities.
Conclusion
Filing (or defending) an estafa case in the Philippines demands careful mapping of facts to a specific statutory mode, strict proof of deceit or abuse of confidence, and meticulous attention to procedural nuances such as venue, jurisdictional amount, and timelines. Mastery of these “grounds” ensures that the complaint withstands judicial scrutiny and that parties’ rights are effectively vindicated.