Minimum Amount Required for Estafa Charges in the Philippines (A comprehensive primer, updated to R.A. 10951)
1. Key Take‑aways
| Question | Short Answer |
|---|---|
| Is there a peso “floor” before you can sue for estafa? | None. Any amount—₱1, a cellphone‑load code, or several million pesos—can be the subject of an estafa complaint. |
| Why does the amount still matter? | It governs (a) the penalty range, (b) the prescriptive period, (c) the court that will hear the case, and (d) procedural detours such as barangay conciliation. |
| What are the current brackets? | R.A. 10951 (2017) re‑indexed the values in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). See § 4 below for the full table. |
| Is the amount computed per act or in aggregate? | Generally per criminal act, unless the acts form a “continued crime” (delito continuado) or a “complex crime,” in which case the totals are lumped. |
| Civil vs. criminal liability | The victim may recover the full amount defrauded + interest in the criminal case itself; no separate civil suit is necessary. |
2. What is Estafa?
Article 315, RPC, punishes “swindling” committed through (a) abuse of confidence, (b) deceit/fraud, (c) fraudulent means under special statutes (e.g., bouncing checks, false pretenses). Essential elements:
- Deceit or abuse of confidence;
- Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation; and
- Causal connection between 1 and 2.
The second element means the amount lost must be provable, but its size is irrelevant to the existence of the offense.
3. Why People Think There’s a “Minimum”
- Penalty brackets: Before 2017, anything “₱200 or less” carried only arresto menor (≤ 30 days). Some believed prosecutors would refuse “small” cases to conserve resources. That was practice—not law.
- Barangay Justice Law (R.A. 7160, ch. 7): If parties live in the same barangay/city/municipality and the claim is purely civil or the penalty does not exceed one year AND fine ≤ ₱5,000, prior barangay mediation is mandatory. Many complainants equate this with an outright bar, although the requirement is merely procedural.
- Small Claims vs. Criminal Action: A civil case for “small claims” (≤ ₱1 million under A.M. 08‑8‑7‑SC, as amended) is easier to file than a criminal estafa complaint, so lawyers sometimes recommend the civil route when the amount is low.
4. Updated Penalty Table (Art. 315 as amended by R.A. 10951, § 85)**
| Amount Involved | Principal Penalty* | Illustrative Maximum Term** | Prescriptive Period*** |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ ₱20,000 | Arresto mayor max (1 mo 1 day – 6 mos) to Prisión correccional min (6 mos 1 day – 2 yrs 4 mos) | up to 2 yrs 4 mos | 5 yrs |
| > ₱20,000 – ₱1,200,000 | Prisión correccional med & max (2 yrs 4 mos 1 day – 6 yrs) | up to 6 yrs | 10 yrs |
| > ₱1,200,000 – ₱2,400,000 | Prisión mayor min & med (6 yrs 1 day – 12 yrs) | up to 12 yrs | 15 yrs |
| > ₱2,400,000 | Prisión mayor max to Reclusión temporal min (12 yrs 1 day – 20 yrs) + 1 yr for every additional ₱1 million, but cap at 20 yrs total | 20 yrs | 15 yrs |
* Indivisible penalties (e.g., reclusión perpetua) no longer apply to estafa after R.A. 10951. ** Courts still apply Article 64 when choosing the exact period within the range. *** Art. 90 RPC ties prescriptive periods to the maximum imposable penalty.
5. Practical Effects of the Amount
| Aspect | ≤ ₱20k | ₱20k–₱1.2 M | ₱1.2 M–₱2.4 M | > ₱2.4 M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complainant’s first stop | Barangay (if same LGU) | City/Prov’l Prosecutor’s Office | Same | Same |
| Bail typically set at | ₱6k–₱12k | ₱24k–₱60k | ₱60k–₱120k | ₱120k + |
| Trial court | MTC/MeTC | RTC | RTC | RTC |
| Civil indemnity recoverable in same case? | ✔︎ (Art. 100 RPC) | ✔︎ | ✔︎ | ✔︎ |
| Prescriptive period (years) | 5 | 10 | 15 | 15 |
| Probation eligibility | Highly likely | Possible (≤ 6 yrs) | Rare (if penalty ≤ 6 yrs) | None |
6. Computing “Amount Involved”
- Market value at the time of commission controls (People v. Dizon, G.R. 176755, 28 Jan 2015).
- Foreign currency is converted to pesos using the BSP closing rate on the date of the estafa (People v. Malabanan, G.R. 233980, 5 Dec 2019).
- Multiple defraudations may be: Separate crimes if each deceit is distinct, or a continued crime if committed “under one criminal intent” (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320). Total value matters only in the latter.
- Interest or opportunity cost is not added for computing the penalty bracket but is recoverable as civil liability.
7. Interaction with Other Offenses
| Scenario | Possible “Tandem” Offense | Which One Prevails? |
|---|---|---|
| Issued a worthless check | B.P. 22 (“Bouncing Checks Law”) | Separate; you may be charged with both. |
| Used falsified documents | Falsification (Art. 171/172) | If the falsification was the means to commit estafa, crime becomes complex under Art. 48. |
| Computer‑related fraud | Cybercrime Act (R.A. 10175) | Estafa is “qualified” by ICT use → penalty next higher degree. |
8. Defenses Commonly Raised in “Small‑Amount” Estafa
- No deceit / mere non‑payment of debt – Criminal intent absent; remedy is civil.
- Novation – Full repayment before information is filed extinguishes criminal liability (Art. 89[1]); after filing, it may only mitigate.
- Prescription – Especially potent for ≤ ₱20k cases because they prescribe in five years.
- Jurisdiction / barangay conciliation – Complaint dismissed for failure to undergo Katarungang Pambarangay where required.
9. Filing Strategy for Victims
- Document everything: receipts, chat logs, demand letters; the quantum of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt.”
- Send a written demand; failure to return after demand is circumstantial evidence of deceit.
- Consider parallel civil suit only if you need immediate injunctive relief (e.g., asset freeze).
- For micro amounts and parties in the same locality, start with barangay mediation—cheaper, often faster, and suspension of the limitations period applies.
10. Policy Rationale Behind R.A. 10951’s Re‑indexing
- Inflation had rendered the 1930 pesos almost meaningless.
- The reform keeps petty cases out of congested jails via lighter penalties and encourages plea‑bargaining.
- It aligns estafa brackets with theft to preserve proportionality.
Disclaimer – This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Laws and jurisprudence evolve; consult a Philippine lawyer for your specific situation.