1) What “estafa” is, legally

Estafa is the umbrella term for “swindling” punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In broad strokes, it is committed when a person, through deceit or abuse of confidence, causes another to suffer damage (usually financial), and the law specifically covers that mode of defrauding.

Common modes under Article 315 (high-level)

While Article 315 has multiple subparagraphs, most cases fall into one of these patterns:

Abuse of confidence / misappropriation The offender receives money, property, or something of value in trust, on commission, for administration, or under obligation to return/deliver, then misappropriates, converts, or denies receiving it, causing damage.
Deceit / false pretenses The offender uses false name, fraudulent acts, or misrepresentation that induces the victim to part with money or property, causing damage.
Bouncing-check estafa (separate from BP 22) Estafa can be charged when a check is issued as part of deceit (not all bouncing checks automatically become estafa; it depends on the circumstances and the specific statutory requisites).

Different modes can affect proof, defenses, and sometimes whether other crimes (like BP 22 or syndicated estafa) may also apply.

2) Why the amount matters: the penalty scale for estafa

For “ordinary” estafa under Article 315, the amount of damage is central to the penalty—especially once it crosses major thresholds.

Two things to keep straight

The “base” penalty bracket depends on the amount defrauded.
For high amounts, the law uses an escalation mechanism that can raise the penalty up to a statutory cap.

Historically, Article 315 used the well-known ₱12,000 / ₱22,000 thresholds and an increment rule. Republic Act No. 10951 (2017) revised many monetary thresholds in property crimes (including estafa), so practitioners often check the current text when calculating brackets. Even with updated thresholds, the practical reality for amounts beyond ₱1,000,000 is that exposure often falls in prisión mayor up to reclusión temporal territory, and the analysis frequently turns on (a) the exact bracket used by the court and (b) whether qualifying/special laws apply (notably PD 1689).

Because you asked for more than ₱1,000,000, the most important “core” penalty discussion is what happens at the upper end of Article 315 and how courts structure sentences.

3) Core penalty exposure for > ₱1,000,000 under Article 315 (ordinary estafa)

A. The classic “increment + cap” structure (the framework you must understand)

Under the traditional Article 315 structure widely taught in Philippine criminal law:

Once the amount exceeds the statutory threshold (famously ₱22,000 in the older text), the penalty begins in the bracket of prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum and then increases by one (1) year for each additional ₱10,000, but the total penalty cannot exceed twenty (20) years.
When the computed penalty reaches the cap, the penalty is treated as reclusión temporal (because 20 years sits at the top end of reclusión temporal).

What this means for ₱1,000,000+: If you apply this “increment + cap” mechanism, the computed increments for ₱1,000,000 are so large that the sentence hits the 20-year cap very quickly. Practically, ₱1,000,000+ almost always places the maximum exposure at 20 years for ordinary estafa under this structure, absent special laws.

Example using the classic numbers: Excess over ₱22,000 is about ₱978,000. At 1 year per ₱10,000, that’s ~97 years of increments—but the law caps it at 20 years, so the penalty tops out at 20 years.

B. What “20 years” implies in Philippine penalty terminology

A penalty that reaches 20 years is within reclusión temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years). Reclusión temporal is an afflictive penalty, which matters for:

Jurisdiction and procedure (usually RTC; preliminary investigation is standard).
Prescriptive periods (afflictive penalties generally mean longer prescription).
Accessory penalties (civil interdiction, etc., depending on the imposable principal penalty and final judgment).
Bail considerations (bail remains a right before conviction in many non-capital situations, but courts evaluate factors; special laws can change the stakes).

C. The Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) almost always matters

For most convictions under the RPC (with notable exceptions), courts impose an indeterminate sentence:

a minimum term taken from the penalty next lower in degree than the imposable penalty, and
a maximum term taken from the proper period of the imposable penalty (considering mitigating/aggravating circumstances).

So if the imposable penalty has reached reclusión temporal, the minimum is typically selected from prisión mayor (the penalty next lower in degree).

Ranges to know (duration):

Prisión mayor: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
Reclusión temporal: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years

Illustrative outcome for ₱1,000,000+ under the capped framework (very common pattern):

Minimum: somewhere within 6 years and 1 day to 12 years (prisión mayor)
Maximum: somewhere within 12 years and 1 day to 20 years (reclusión temporal), often approaching the upper end when the amount is very large and no strong mitigation exists.

The exact numbers depend on:

how the court fixes the period (minimum/medium/maximum) under the RPC rules on mitigating/aggravating circumstances, and
whether the amount bracket is applied in a way that places the case at the cap or below it (post-RA 10951 bracket issues can affect this in some scenarios).

4) How courts choose the “period” (minimum / medium / maximum)

For divisible penalties (like prisión mayor or reclusión temporal), the RPC divides them into three periods (minimum, medium, maximum). The judge then selects the appropriate period based on the presence of:

Mitigating circumstances (e.g., voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, restitution in some contexts—not all are automatic)
Aggravating circumstances (e.g., abuse of superior strength is not typical for estafa, but certain aggravations may apply depending on facts)
Privileged mitigating circumstances (rare in estafa fact patterns, but conceptually important because they reduce the penalty by degree)

The period selection influences the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

5) Special situation: syndicated estafa under PD 1689 (often the biggest risk in “large” cases)

When estafa involves defrauding the public and is committed by a syndicate, Philippine prosecutors frequently evaluate Presidential Decree No. 1689 (“Syndicated Estafa”), which dramatically increases the penalty.

Key idea

PD 1689 treats certain large-scale frauds as a form of economic sabotage, and the punishment can reach reclusión perpetua (and historically referenced life imprisonment to death; the death penalty is not currently in force, but reclusión perpetua remains a severe exposure).

Typical hallmarks prosecutors look for

While each case turns on proof, PD 1689 discussions commonly involve:

Five (5) or more persons forming a syndicate, and
Fraud committed against the general public (often investment-type solicitations, pyramiding-like setups, widespread victimization), and
Use of the estafa mechanism under Article 315.

Practical consequence for a ₱1,000,000+ case: Even if the amount is “only” slightly above ₱1,000,000, if it involves a syndicate and public victimization, the penalty discussion can jump from “up to 20 years” (ordinary Article 315) to reclusión perpetua (PD 1689 territory).

6) Estafa vs. BP 22 (bouncing checks) in million-peso disputes

Large disputes often involve checks. Two legal tracks may appear:

BP 22 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) Focuses on the act of making/issuing a worthless check under statutory conditions. It is not necessary to prove the full “deceit” mechanics of estafa; it has its own elements and notice requirements.
Estafa (Article 315) involving checks Requires the prosecution to prove the estafa elements (including deceit/abuse of confidence and damage) as applied to check issuance.

It’s possible for facts to expose a person to both, but they are distinct offenses with distinct elements, defenses, and penalty structures.

7) Civil liability is not optional: restitution and damages

A criminal conviction for estafa almost always carries civil liability, which may include:

Restitution/return of the amount or property
Actual damages
Interest (often a major component in long-running cases)
Potentially moral and exemplary damages depending on the circumstances and court findings

Even without conviction, civil claims may proceed under separate civil actions where allowed, but the estafa context commonly results in civil awards embedded in the criminal judgment.

8) Procedure and forum: what “₱1,000,000+” usually implies

For million-peso estafa allegations, the case typically involves:

Preliminary investigation (because the penalty exposure is commonly beyond the lower-court threshold)
Filing and trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in most situations
Documentary-heavy evidence: contracts, receipts, ledgers, bank records, communications
Strong emphasis on proving:
- receipt in trust (for misappropriation-type estafa),
- demand (often important evidentiary fact, especially for misappropriation and denial),
- reliance on misrepresentation (for deceit-based estafa),
- damage and the exact amount (to fix penalty and civil liability)

9) Defenses and mitigation issues that matter specifically to penalty

In high-amount estafa, the penalty outcome can pivot on whether the case is framed as criminal fraud or a civil/business dispute.

Common defense themes (fact-dependent)

Purely civil obligation: breach of contract without criminal deceit/abuse of confidence
No fiduciary/trust receipt: money/property was not received under an obligation to return/deliver in the manner required by the statute
No misappropriation: inability to pay is not automatically estafa; prosecution must show conversion/misappropriation/denial with damage
No deceit at inception: for deceit-based estafa, misrepresentation must be material and causative
No damage / wrong amount: overstatement of loss can affect both penalty bracket and civil award
Good faith: can negate criminal intent in some scenarios

Mitigation and practical penalty effects

Restitution/partial payment does not automatically erase criminal liability, but it can:
- affect credibility findings,
- support certain mitigation arguments,
- influence plea bargaining outcomes where legally available and approved.

10) Putting it all together for “More Than ₱1,000,000”

Ordinary Article 315 estafa (no special law)

Penalty exposure often sits at the upper end of the Article 315 scheme.
Under the classic increment-and-cap framework, the maximum commonly reaches 20 years (reclusión temporal).
With the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentences commonly take the form:
- minimum within prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years)
- maximum within reclusión temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20 years)

With PD 1689 (syndicated estafa / economic sabotage indicators)

Exposure can escalate to reclusión perpetua if the statutory conditions are met and proven.

With checks

Separate and/or additional exposure under BP 22 may appear, but it is analytically distinct from estafa.

11) Practical checklist for analyzing a ₱1,000,000+ estafa penalty question

Identify the exact mode under Article 315 (misappropriation? false pretenses? check-related?)
Fix the proven amount of damage (penalty bracket + civil liability both depend on it)
Check for PD 1689 risk factors (syndicate, defrauding the public, large-scale victimization)
Apply period rules (mitigating/aggravating circumstances)
Apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law (minimum from next-lower penalty; maximum from proper period)
Account for civil liability (restitution + damages + interest can dwarf other consequences)