Prescription of Estafa Cases in the Philippines: Can a 2009 Case Be Revived?

Overview

“Prescription” (statute of limitations) in criminal cases fixes the time within which the State must begin prosecution. For estafa (Article 315, Revised Penal Code or RPC), the prescriptive period depends on the maximum penalty legally attachable to the act charged, not on the penalty ultimately imposed. Whether a matter from 2009 can still be prosecuted today turns on (1) the correct prescriptive period, (2) when prescription began to run, and (3) what, if anything, interrupted or tolled it.

Governing Law & Core Rules

1) What sets the prescriptive period?

Article 90, RPC (prescription of crimes) controls offenses under the RPC, including estafa.
The prescriptive period is pegged to the classification of the penalty:
- Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or reclusion temporal: 20 years
- Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties (e.g., prisión mayor): 15 years
- Crimes punishable by a correctional penalty (e.g., prisión correccional): 10 years
- Crimes punishable by arresto mayor: 5 years
- Light offenses: 2 months

Why penalty class matters in estafa: Article 315 scales the penalty by the amount defrauded (and certain circumstances). Depending on the value involved, the maximum imposable penalty may fall under prisión correccional (correctional) or prisión mayor (afflictive), which flips the prescriptive period from 10 to 15 years.

Practical takeaway:

If the charge-sheeted estafa scenario carries a maximum of prisión correccional, prescription is 10 years.

If it carries a maximum of prisión mayor (afflictive), prescription is 15 years.

(Note: Republic Act No. 10951 (2017) adjusted monetary thresholds in Article 315. Courts typically determine prescription using the penalty as defined by the law in force at the time of commission, subject to the rule on retroactivity of penal laws favorable to the accused. Counsel must compute using the correct, time-appropriate thresholds.)

2) When does the clock start?

Under Article 91, RPC, prescription commences:

From the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents; or
If the offender was absent from the Philippines, from the time of his/her return (because prescription does not run during absence from the Philippine Archipelago).

For estafa, “discovery” is case-specific. It may be when the victim learned of the deceit or misappropriation, when the duty to account was breached, or when a demand was ignored if demand is an element of the modality charged. (Demand is not always an element of estafa—but when the charge relies on a fiduciary breach that requires a demand to crystallize misappropriation, the date of demand or failure to comply often anchors “discovery.”)

3) What interrupts or tolls prescription?

Article 91 provides that prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. Jurisprudence has long recognized that:

Filing a criminal complaint with the prosecutor (for preliminary investigation) interrupts prescription.
Filing in court (e.g., an information) interrupts prescription.
Barangay conciliation (when the dispute is covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay law and conciliation is a condition precedent) tolls prescription for the duration of the proceedings.
Absence from the Philippines of the accused suspends the running.

If the criminal proceedings end without a conviction or acquittal (e.g., dismissal without jeopardy), the clock starts to run again from the termination date. (For RPC crimes, there is no “two-year undue delay” clause—that clause appears in the special-law prescription statute, not in the RPC.)

Applying the Rules to a 2009 Estafa

Assume the crime was discovered in 2009 (or the discovery date, as legally defined, falls in 2009). The outcome today depends on the correct prescriptive period and interruptions:

Scenario A — Correctional penalty (10 years)

Clock: 10 years from discovery in 2009 → prescribed in 2019
Revival? Not as a criminal action, unless the prescriptive period was interrupted (e.g., a complaint with the prosecutor’s office or barangay was filed within those 10 years) or tolled (e.g., accused was abroad).

Scenario B — Afflictive penalty (15 years)

Clock: 15 years from discovery in 2009 → prescribed in 2024
Revival? In 2025, a new criminal case cannot be initiated unless prescription was interrupted/tolled before 2024.
- Example interrupters: complaint filed with the prosecutor in 2015 (interrupts); case filed in court in 2016 (interrupts); barangay conciliation properly commenced in 2012 (tolls during conciliation); accused left the Philippines from 2010–2013 (tolls during absence).

Scenario C — Timely interruption

If any valid interruption/tolling occurred before the prescriptive period lapsed, the State may still proceed:
- Example timeline (afflictive): discovered May 2009 → complaint with prosecutor January 2015 (interrupts at year 5+). Case dismissed without prejudice June 2017 → clock resumes June 2017 with the unused balance (roughly 9.5 years left). A fresh filing anytime before that balance runs out remains timely.

Scenario D — No interruption; accused present in PH

If no complaint was filed with the prosecutor or the courts, no barangay proceedings were initiated, and the accused never left the country, the case has prescribed by 2019 (correctional) or 2024 (afflictive).

Frequent Pitfalls and Clarifications

“We wrote a demand letter in 2010—does that interrupt prescription?” No. Demands are not filings; they may be relevant to discovery or to the elements, but do not interrupt prescription by themselves.
“We filed a complaint with the prosecutor, but it sat there for years.” The act of filing with the prosecutor interrupts prescription. Subsequent administrative delay in the prosecutor’s office does not make the case prescribe (distinct from speedy-trial concerns).
“We went to the barangay first.” When barangay conciliation is required (same city/municipality; parties are natural persons; not among the exceptions), the conciliation period suspends prescription. Ensure the dates are documented.
“The thresholds changed under RA 10951.” RA 10951 revised amount thresholds and corresponding penalties for property crimes. Because prescription hinges on the maximum imposable penalty, counsel must:
- Determine the applicable law at the time of commission; and
- Consider the favorable retroactivity rule (if it reduces penalty class), since a reduced penalty class can shorten the prescriptive period—potentially benefiting the accused.
“The accused left the Philippines.” Prescription does not run while the accused is outside the Philippines. Meticulous proof of absence/return matters.
“The first case was dismissed without prejudice.” Dismissal without jeopardy restarts the clock (with the remaining time) from the date of termination. If the remaining time later lapses without a new filing, the action prescribes.

Criminal vs. Civil Liability

Even when the criminal action has prescribed, the civil aspect may still be pursued on a separate civil cause (e.g., independent civil action for fraud under the Civil Code), subject to civil prescriptive periods (often four years from discovery for actions based on fraud; other civil theories may have different periods). The civil liability ex delicto tied to the criminal case generally follows the criminal; if the criminal case prescribes, that ex delicto track is extinguished, but independent civil actions—if properly grounded—may remain viable.

Practical Checklist (for 2009 matters)

Fix the “discovery” date under Article 91 with evidence (demand, audit, admissions, documents, etc.).
Classify the penalty correctly based on the amount and applicable law at the time (and assess if RA 10951’s favorable retroactivity changes the class).
Compute the base period:
- Correctional → 10 years
- Afflictive → 15 years
Audit for interruptions/tolling:
- Filing with prosecutor or court (dates, docket numbers)
- Barangay conciliation (dates; covered dispute)
- Absence abroad of the accused (proof)
If prescription lapsed with no interruption/tolling, the criminal case cannot be revived. Consider civil remedies still within time.

Bottom Line

A 2009 estafa can be revived or prosecuted today only if the prescriptive clock has not fully run—because it was interrupted (prosecutor/court filing) or tolled (barangay conciliation where required, or the accused’s absence abroad), with any remaining time properly computed upon resumption.
If no valid interruption occurred and the accused remained in the Philippines, the case is time-barred by 2019 (correctional) or 2024 (afflictive).
Even if the criminal path is closed, civil avenues may still be open, depending on the cause of action and its separate prescriptive period.

This article provides a doctrinal framework. Concrete outcomes turn on dates, amounts, documents, and movements of the parties. For a 2009 matter, gather the paper trail (demands, filings, barangay minutes, travel records) and run the computation exactly as above.