Prescription Periods for Estafa and Falsification in Philippine Criminal Law (A practitioner-oriented explainer)
1. Statutory Framework
| Subject | Primary Source | Key Provisions |
|---|---|---|
| Prescription of crimes | Revised Penal Code (RPC), Art. 90–91 | Sets the length of time within which the State must begin prosecution (Art. 90) and how to compute, suspend, or interrupt it (Art. 91). |
| Estafa (swindling) | RPC Art. 315–318 (as amended by RA 10951, 2017) | Fixes penalties according to the amount defrauded. |
| Falsification | RPC Art. 171–172, 174–176 | Classifies falsification of (a) public/official, (b) commercial, or (c) private documents, each with its own penalties. |
Why penalties matter: Art. 90 links the prescriptive period directly to the highest imposable penalty for the offense.
2. Cheat-Sheet: Art. 90 Prescriptive Periods
| Maximum imposable penalty for the crime | Prescribes in |
|---|---|
| Death, Reclusión Perpetua, Reclusión Temporal | 20 years |
| Any other afflictive penalty (e.g., Prision Mayor) | 15 years |
| Correctional penalty (except Arresto Mayor) | 10 years |
| Arresto Mayor | 5 years |
| Light offenses (Arresto Menor or fine ≤ ₱40,000) | 2 months |
Afflictive vs. correctional is determined by Art. 25 RPC.
3. Estafa: Penalties and Prescription
3.1 Penalty grid (post-RA 10951)
| Amount defrauded | Penalty (Art. 315 as amended) | Classification | Prescribes in |
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ ₱40,000 | Arresto Mayor max – Prisión Correccional max (1 mo 1 d – 6 y) | Correctional | 10 years |
| > ₱40,000 – ₱1,200,000 | Prisión Correccional max – Prisión Mayor min (6 y 1 d – 12 y) | Afflictive | 15 years |
| > ₱1,200,000 – ₱2,400,000 | Prisión Mayor min – med (8 y 1 d – 14 y 8 m) | Afflictive | 15 years |
| > ₱2,400,000 – ₱8,800,000 | Prisión Mayor med – max (12 y 1 d – 20 y) | Reclusión Temporal | 20 years |
| > ₱8,800,000 | Reclusión Temporal max – Reclusión Perpetua (17 y 4 m 1 d – 40 y) | RT/RP | 20 years |
Key takeaways
- The larger the amount, the longer the penalty, the longer the prescriptive period.
- Complex estafa (Art. 315 § 2(a): by issuance of bouncing checks) follows the same schedule.
- Continuing offense theory: When estafa involves several defalcations from a single fiduciary relationship (e.g., a cashier), prescription counts from the last diversion or last demand (People v. Ojeda, CA-G.R. 1994).
4. Falsification: Penalties and Prescription
4.1 Penalties in a nutshell
| Type | Articles | Penalty | Classification | Prescribes in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public/official documents | 171 (public officer) / 172 § 1 (private individual) | Prisión Mayor med–max (8 y 1 d – 12 y) & fine | Afflictive | 15 years |
| Commercial documents | 172 § 1 | Prisión Mayor med–max | Afflictive | 15 years |
| Private documents | 172 § 2 | Prisión Correccional med–max (2 y 4 m 1 d – 6 y) & fine | Correctional | 10 years |
| Falsification of wireless/telegraph messages | 174 | Prisión Correccional med–max | Correctional | 10 years |
| Possession/use of falsified documents | 176 | Penalty next lower than that of consummated falsification | Varies | 10 or 15 years |
Practical note: If the falsified document is used to commit estafa, the prosecution may charge either: • estafa complexed with falsification (Art. 48) – single 20-year prescriptive period, or • separate counts – each offense prescribes independently.
5. Computing Prescription (Art. 91)
Starting point Ordinary rule: Day the crime is committed. Discovery rule:
- For falsification of private or commercial documents the period begins upon discovery by the offended party or authorities.
- For estafa, if the offender concealed acts, the clock often runs from last demand or discovery (People v. Dizon, G.R. 173573, 2012).
Interruptions
- Filing a complaint (even one only for preliminary investigation) or information in the prosecutor’s office or court interrupts prescription (Paras v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 91123, 1991).
- If proceedings languish for more than the prescriptive period through no fault of the accused, the offense may prescribe (Roque v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 58021-23, 1989).
Suspension
- When the offender is absent from the Philippines, prescription is suspended (Art. 91 ¶ 2).
- Suspension during periods when courts are legally closed (e.g., war time) also applies.
Restarting
- Following dismissal of a complaint without the express consent of the accused (e.g., for lack of jurisdiction), prescription starts anew (Sanrio v. People, G.R. 155831, 2008).
- If dismissal is with the accused’s express consent or on the merits (acquittal), prosecution is barred altogether (double jeopardy).
6. Interplay with Civil Actions
- The civil action for recovery of the defrauded amount prescribes differently—generally 4 years from discovery of fraud (Art. 1391 Civil Code) or 6 years for quasi-delict (Art. 1145(1)).
- Filing the criminal case impliedly includes the civil action (Rule 111, Rules of Court), tolling both.
7. Selected Doctrinal Highlights
| Case | Gist |
|---|---|
| People v. Galano, 93 Phil 95 (1953) | Estafa by fiduciary repeatedly misappropriating: prescriptive period runs from last misappropriation. |
| People v. Tamani, G.R. 149637 (2006) | Falsification considered discoverable only upon actual knowledge of alteration; prescription counts from discovery, not date on document. |
| Roque v. Sandiganbayan, supra | If State sleeps on prosecution for the full prescriptive period after filing, the case may nevertheless be dismissed on prescription grounds. |
| Abundo v. People, G.R. 211651 (2018) | A complaint with the barangay (not a prosecutor) does not interrupt prescription; proper filing must be with an authorized prosecutorial body or court. |
8. Practical Pointers for Practitioners & Complainants
- Identify the exact amount or document type – the penalty (and thus prescription) turns on these details.
- File early, file properly – a sworn complaint-affidavit at the prosecutor’s office is enough to interrupt prescription.
- Monitor proceedings – prolonged inactivity after filing can resurrect prescription defenses.
- Secure proof of discovery – for falsification, retention of the “first-seen” version of the document and a notarized certification of discovery date can forestall prescription arguments.
- Consider complex crimes vs. multiple informations – sometimes charging estafa through falsification (Art. 48) yields a longer 20-year period and simplifies the case.
9. Quick Reference Flow
flowchart TD
A{Identify Offense} -->|Estafa| B(Determine Amount)
A -->|Falsification| C(Determine Doc Type)
B --> D[Look up Penalty<br>in Art. 315/RA 10951]
C --> E[Look up Penalty<br>in Art. 171-172]
D & E --> F[Classify as Afflictive<br>or Correctional]
F --> G[Match to Art. 90<br>Prescriptive Period]
G --> H[Compute Start Date<br>(Art. 91 rules)]
H --> I[Check Interruptions<br>or Suspensions]
I --> J[Determine if Action<br>is Time-Barred]10. Bottom-Line Summary
- Estafa now frequently carries afflictive penalties due to the inflation-adjusted thresholds of RA 10951; most cases therefore prescribe in 15 years, jumping to 20 years once the defrauded amount exceeds ₱2.4 million.
- Falsification of public or commercial documents is an afflictive crime and prescribes in 15 years; falsification of private documents in 10 years.
- The clock generally starts on the day of commission, except when the crime is inherently concealed (typical in falsification of private or commercial papers and some forms of estafa), in which case it starts upon discovery.
- Filing any proper criminal complaint or information arrests the clock, but the State must prosecute diligently or risk prescription reviving as a defense.
- When estafa and falsification overlap, strategic charging (complex crime vs. separate counts) can lengthen or shorten the prescriptive window.
With these guideposts, counsel can quickly assess whether a contemplated prosecution is **still viable—or already time-barred—**and structure pleadings to survive a motion to quash on prescription grounds.