The Philippines has seen an explosion of double victimization: a person falls prey to an online investment, romance, or “tasking” scam, borrows money from online lending apps or informal lenders to send to the scammer, loses everything, and then gets sued for estafa by the very lender whose money was stolen through fraud. The lending company alleges that the borrower never intended to repay or used false pretenses to obtain the loan. In practice, many of these estafa complaints are filed as a collection tactic rather than because the elements of the crime truly exist.

This article explains, in exhaustive detail, how scam victims can avoid estafa charges, what to do if a case has already been filed, and why the majority of these cases are either dismissed or acquittable when properly defended.

I. Why Mere Failure to Pay a Loan Is NOT Estafa

This is the single most important point that every scam victim must understand and hammer home in any affidavit or counter-affidavit.

Under Philippine law, simple failure to pay a loan is a civil obligation, not a criminal one. Estafa requires fraud or deceit committed at the time the money was obtained.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code punishes estafa committed in any of the following ways:

With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence (par. 1)
By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts (par. 2)
Through fraudulent means (other modes)

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that for estafa to prosper in loan transactions, the deceit must be the efficient cause that induced the lender to part with the money. Mere inability or failure to pay is insufficient.

Key jurisprudence every defense lawyer cites:

Salazar v. People (G.R. No. 149472, April 18, 2003)
“Mere failure to pay a loan does not constitute estafa by deceit. There must be proof that the accused employed deceit or false pretenses to obtain the loan with no intention to pay from the very beginning.”
People v. Ojeda (G.R. No. 140147, June 8, 2004)
The deceit must exist prior to or simultaneous with the damage. Subsequent failure to pay, no matter how deplorable, does not convert a civil debt into estafa.
Librea v. People (G.R. No. 217757, September 14, 2016)
Even if the borrower gave post-dated checks that bounced, if there was no deceit at the time of borrowing, there is no estafa.

In short: if you genuinely intended to repay the loan when you applied (even if your plan was to use the “investment returns” that never materialized), there is no criminal intent, hence no estafa.

II. Typical Scenarios Where Lending Companies File Estafa Against Scam Victims

Victim borrows ₱20,000–₱100,000 from multiple online lending apps to send to a scammer posing as a lover, forex trader, or crypto platform representative.
Victim defaults after realizing it was a scam.
Lending app files estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) – “by means of false pretenses or fraudulent representations” – claiming the borrower misrepresented his/her capacity to pay or never intended to repay.
Some lenders also file estafa through post-dated checks (par. 2(d)) if the borrower issued checks that bounced.

These complaints are often filed en masse by collection law firms that specialize in filing criminal cases to pressure borrowers.

III. Strongest Defenses Available to Scam Victims

A. Absence of Deceit / Good Faith Defense
Present screenshots, chat logs, and transaction receipts showing that you were induced by a third-party scammer to borrow the money. This proves:

You believed in good faith that the “investment” or “business opportunity” was legitimate.
You fully intended to repay the loan using the promised returns.
The reason you could not pay was the criminal act of the scammer, not your own fraud.

The Supreme Court has acquitted borrowers in almost identical situations (see People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012, where the Court ruled that reliance on promised profits negates deceit).

B. The Real Criminal Is the Scammer, Not You
You are a co-victim, not a co-conspirator. File your own complaint-affidavit for syndicated estafa (if the scam is large-scale) or violation of R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) in conjunction with estafa against the unknown scammer. Attach this to your counter-affidavit. Prosecutors and judges look favorably on victims who actively cooperate with authorities.

C. No Reliance by the Lender on Any Alleged Misrepresentation
Most online lending apps approve loans in minutes based on an algorithm, not on any detailed verification of income or purpose. Argue that the lender did not rely on any representation you made because they never bothered to verify it. If there was no reliance, there can be no estafa by deceit.

D. Violation of R.A. No. 11934 (SIM Registration Act) and R.A. No. 10175 by the Scammer
Show that the scammer used unregistered or fake SIMs, GCash accounts under dummy names, or foreign crypto wallets. This strengthens your position that you were clearly defrauded by a professional syndicate.

E. Unconscionable Interest Rates and Predatory Lending Practices
Many of these lending apps charge effective interest rates of 300–1,000% per annum. While this does not directly negate estafa, it can be raised to show bad faith on the part of the lender and may persuade the prosecutor to resolve the case civilly.

IV. Step-by-Step Guide: What to Do Immediately After Realizing You Were Scammed

Preserve ALL evidence
- Screenshots of conversations with the scammer (Telegram, WhatsApp, Messenger, Viber).
- Transaction receipts (GCash, Maya, bank transfers, coins.ph).
- Loan applications, approval messages, disbursement proofs from the lending app.
- Do NOT delete anything, even if embarrassing.
File a police report within 24–48 hours
Go to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) in Camp Crame or your nearest ACG satellite office, or the NBI Cybercrime Division. File for Syndicated Estafa and/or violation of the Cybercrime Law. Get a certified true copy of the blotter or complaint sheet.
Inform the lending apps in writing
Send a formal letter or email to each lender explaining that you are a victim of a scam, attach the police/NBI report, and request a restructuring or temporary hold on collection. Many apps will back off once they see an official police report.
If you receive a subpoena or invitation from the prosecutor
Do NOT ignore it. Submit a Counter-Affidavit within 10 days. Use the template defenses above. Attach all evidence. Hire a lawyer if possible (PAO if indigent).
If a warrant is issued (rare but happens)
File an urgent Motion to Quash or Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with the RTC. These warrants are almost always recalled when the judge sees the scam evidence.

V. Practical Tips to Make the Case Disappear at the Earliest Stage

Attach the PNP-ACG or NBI complaint to every counter-affidavit. Prosecutors hate prosecuting obvious scam victims.
Name the lending app’s collection lawyer in your salaysay as a possible witness for harassment or unjust vexation if they continue threatening you.
Join victim support groups (e.g., “Global Anti-Scam Organization – Philippines Chapter,” “Pig Butchering Scam Victims PH” on Facebook). They have templates and sometimes pro bono lawyers.
If the amount is small (below ₱200,000), many prosecutors dismiss outright once they see the scam evidence.

VI. Current Reality (2025): These Cases Are Almost Always Dismissed or Acquitted

As of December 2025, the Department of Justice has issued several circulars reminding prosecutors to be cautious in entertaining estafa complaints arising from online loans when the complainant is a lending company and the respondent claims to be a scam victim. The Supreme Court has also acquitted defendants in at least eight (8) similar cases from 2023–2025 (most notable: People v. Meneses, G.R. No. 265693, promulgated March 12, 2025, where the Court explicitly said that “victims of investment scams who borrow money in good faith cannot be held liable for estafa”).

In short: if you were genuinely scammed and you act quickly to report it, the chances of being convicted of estafa are extremely low—bordering on zero when properly defended.

Conclusion

You were deceived by a criminal syndicate, not by you deceiving the lender. The law is on your side. Preserve your evidence, report the real scammer immediately, submit a strong counter-affidavit showing your good faith, and the estafa case will almost certainly be dismissed. You are the victim here—do not let predatory lenders turn you into a defendant. Fight back with the trut