Large-Scale Estafa & the “Three-Year Limitation”

(Philippine context; doctrinal and practice-oriented overview — not legal advice)

Executive takeaways

There is no three-year prescriptive (limitations) period for criminal estafa, and certainly not for large-scale or syndicated estafa.
The prescriptive period depends on the penalty:
- Ordinary (RPC) estafa → usually 10 years (if the maximum imposable penalty is correctional) or 15 years (if afflictive, e.g., reaches prisión mayor).
- Estafa “on a large scale” or “by a syndicate” under P.D. 1689 (a special law) → 20 years.
Prescription generally starts from discovery of the crime/offender, and is interrupted by filing with the prosecutor (when preliminary investigation is required) or by filing the information in court. It runs again if proceedings end without conviction/acquittal or are unjustifiably stopped for reasons not attributable to the accused.

1) What counts as estafa — and what makes it “large-scale”

Estafa (swindling) is punished by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). It is committed through several modes, the most common being:

Misappropriation or conversion of money/property received in trust (Art. 315(1)(b));
False pretenses or fraudulent acts (Art. 315(2) sub-modes, e.g., pretending to possess qualifications, using fictitious names, or other deceit at or before the transaction);
Fraudulent means resulting in damage.

Large-scale/Syndicated estafa (P.D. 1689). P.D. 1689 qualifies estafa (or swindling under Arts. 315/316) when committed “on a large scale” or “by a syndicate.” “Syndicated” involves a group (at least five) acting in concert to carry out the swindle. “Large-scale” addresses breadth and public impact (numerous victims/public injury) rather than the mere peso amount. Either qualifier elevates the penalty dramatically (see §3). In practice, pyramid/“investment” schemes frequently trigger P.D. 1689 allegations.

Important: “Large-scale” (P.D. 1689) is different from simply “large amount” estafa under Article 315’s amount-based brackets (as amended by R.A. 10951). The former is a qualification under a special law; the latter just moves you up a penalty bracket under the RPC.

2) The myth of a “three-year limitation”

A three-year bar appears in other legal settings (e.g., certain labor money claims; some administrative or tax refund timelines), but not for criminal estafa. For criminal prescription:

RPC crimes (like ordinary estafa) follow Articles 90 & 91 of the RPC.
Special-law crimes (like P.D. 1689 large-scale/syndicated estafa) follow R.A. 3326 (prescription of offenses under special laws), unless the special law says otherwise.

Bottom line: Three years is not the operative limitations period for filing criminal estafa cases in the Philippines.

3) How long before estafa prescribes?

A) Ordinary (RPC) estafa — Article 315

The prescriptive clock is tied to the maximum imposable penalty (which depends on the amount defrauded under R.A. 10951’s updated brackets):
- If the maximum penalty is correctional → 10 years to prescribe.
- If the maximum penalty is afflictive (e.g., reaches prisión mayor) → 15 years to prescribe.

(You need not memorize peso thresholds to use the rule: determine the maximum penalty applicable to the charged mode/amount; that dictates 10 vs. 15 years.)

B) Large-scale / Syndicated estafa — P.D. 1689 (special law)

P.D. 1689 imposes life imprisonment (now reclusión perpetua with the abolition of the death penalty) for qualified estafa.
Under R.A. 3326, offenses punishable by reclusión perpetua/life prescribe in 20 years.
Practical effect: P.D. 1689 cases carry the longest criminal prescriptive period used in estafa-type prosecutions.

4) When does the prescriptive period begin — and when is it tolled?

Starting point — Article 91 (RPC’s “discovery” rule)

The period begins from the day the offense is discovered by the offended party, authorities, or their agents, and the offender is known.
For misappropriation cases, demand is not an element of estafa; however, failure to account upon demand often marks discovery and evidences misappropriation.
For check-based swindles, discovery is commonly pegged to dishonor/notice.

Interruption (tolling)

Filing the complaint with the prosecutor (for offenses that require preliminary investigation) interrupts prescription, because it is part of the process of instituting criminal proceedings.
Filing the information in court likewise interrupts.
The clock restarts if proceedings terminate without conviction/acquittal or are unjustifiably stopped for reasons not attributable to the accused.

Special-law nuance

For special laws (like P.D. 1689), R.A. 3326 supplies additional rules on accrual and tolling (e.g., periods tied to commission or discovery, interruption by official proceedings). A commonly invoked practical point: the offender’s absence from the Philippines can keep the period from running for special-law offenses.

What does not toll prescription

Demand letters, settlement talks, or internal complaints do not interrupt criminal prescription. You need a criminal complaint before the prosecutor (when PI is required) or an information in court.

5) Charging theory and pleading — why it matters

Allege the qualifier. If the People intend to prosecute under P.D. 1689 (large-scale or syndicated), the information must clearly allege the qualifying facts (e.g., concert of five or more for syndicated; widespread victimization/public injury for large-scale). Otherwise, the case is treated as ordinary estafa under the RPC.
Do not mix apples and oranges. “Large-scale illegal recruitment” (Labor Code/RA 8042/RA 10022) uses different numeric thresholds and concepts — not the same as P.D. 1689 “large-scale estafa.”
Multiplicity. In investment schemes, each victim/transfer can constitute a separate count of estafa; P.D. 1689 lets the State qualify the conduct when the scheme exhibits the large-scale/syndicate features.

6) Jurisdiction, venue, and consequences of the penalty

Trial court jurisdiction over estafa is generally amount-sensitive (Regional Trial Court for higher brackets), per the Judiciary re-apportionment statutes (most recently, R.A. 11576 adjusted jurisdictional thresholds) — but P.D. 1689 cases, due to their penalty, fall within RTC jurisdiction.
No death penalty. R.A. 9346 abolished death; where a law prescribes death, courts impose reclusión perpetua.
Bail & preventive detention. The gravity of P.D. 1689 penalties affects bail considerations and prescriptive computation (20-year window).

7) Civil vs. criminal prescription (don’t confuse them)

Criminal liability for estafa prescribes per §3–4 above.
Civil liability ex delicto (restitution, damages) generally travels with the criminal case.
Separate civil actions based on fraud (e.g., annulment/rescission) follow Civil Code periods (commonly 4 years from discovery); actions on a written contract are 10 years; quasi-delict is 4 years. These do not shorten the criminal prescriptive period.
Compromise or restitution does not erase criminal liability for estafa, though it can mitigate penalty or affect civil awards.

8) Computing prescription — practical templates

A. Ordinary estafa (RPC), misappropriation mode

Discovery: The company discovers on 10 Jan 2020 that entrusted funds were converted and identifies the employee.
Complaint: A sworn complaint is filed with the prosecutor on 15 Mar 2020 → prescription is tolled.
Dismissal without prejudice: The prosecutor provisionally dismisses on 01 Jun 2021 for a curable defect → clock resumes on that date.
Refiling: A new complaint is filed on 15 Jul 2021 → tolled again.
Charge: Information is filed in RTC on 01 Nov 2021 → tolled until judgment.

If the maximum imposable penalty is afflictive, the State’s 15-year window runs only during the untolled gaps between steps (2)–(5).

B. P.D. 1689 (large-scale) from a “pyramid” scheme

Discovery is often pegged to collapse of the scheme or public complaints identifying the perpetrators.
Twenty (20) years is the operative period; filings with the prosecutor and court stop the clock.
If a principal leaves the Philippines, prescription for the special-law offense may not run during absence (per R.A. 3326-type rules).

9) Common defense/prosecution pitfalls

Defense

Mis-timed prescription claim. Raising prescription before reckoning discovery or ignoring tolling by prosecutor filing leads to denial.
Conflating civil with criminal deadlines. A 4-year civil fraud limit does not bar criminal estafa.

Prosecution

Omitting the qualifier. Failure to plead and prove the P.D. 1689 elements reduces the case to ordinary estafa with shorter prescription.
Over-reliance on demand. Demand helps prove misappropriation but isn’t an element; anchor discovery to solid, dated events.
Single-count overload. Bundling numerous victims into one RPC count (without P.D. 1689 qualification) risks variance problems.

10) Quick reference (prescription)

Type of case	Governing law	Typical penalty band	Criminal prescription
Ordinary estafa (RPC Art. 315)	RPC Arts. 315, 90–91; R.A. 10951 (amount brackets)	Correctional (lower amounts) or Afflictive (higher amounts)	10 years (correctional) or 15 years (afflictive)
Large-scale / Syndicated estafa	P.D. 1689 (special law); R.A. 9346 (no death); R.A. 3326 (prescription)	Life imprisonment / reclusión perpetua	20 years

11) Checklist for counsel

Classify the case: RPC estafa vs P.D. 1689 qualifier (large-scale/syndicated).
Fix dates: first actionable discovery, identity of offender, all filings (prosecutor/court).
Penalty mapping: determine the maximum imposable penalty (drives 10 vs 15-year rule).
Tolling ledger: compute only the untolled time toward prescription.
Charging: if invoking P.D. 1689, plead and prove the qualifier (and be ready to show the scheme’s breadth/public impact).
Civil track: decide whether to maintain a separate civil action (e.g., rescission/fraud) and watch different prescriptive clocks.

12) Bottom line on the “three-year limitation”

For large-scale estafa, the operative criminal limitations period is 20 years (special law prescription).
For ordinary estafa, it is 10 or 15 years, never three.
The three-year figure some people cite comes from other areas of law and does not bar a well-timed criminal estafa prosecution.

If you’d like, I can tailor this into:

a one-page client explainer with a fill-in timeline box;
a prosecutor’s charging checklist for P.D. 1689; or
a defense prescription calculator (with sample tolling entries).