A Philippine legal article on when (and how) estafa “expires” as a prosecutable crime

1) What “prescription” means in Philippine criminal law

In Philippine criminal law, prescription of crimes is the rule that the State’s right to prosecute an offense expires after a certain period of time. If the prescriptive period lapses before a criminal case is properly commenced, the accused may invoke prescription as a ground to dismiss the case.

Prescription is different from:

Prescription of penalties (when a sentence can no longer be enforced), and
Prescription of civil actions (deadlines to sue for money or damages), which may have different time limits and rules.

For estafa, the controlling rules are generally found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) because estafa is a crime under the RPC (primarily Article 315, plus related provisions).

2) The legal basis for prescription of estafa

A. Estafa is punished under the Revised Penal Code

The main provisions are:

RPC Article 315 (Estafa/Swindling)
RPC Article 316 (Other forms of swindling)
RPC Article 318 (Other deceits)

B. Prescription rules for crimes under the RPC

The prescriptive period is governed by:

RPC Article 90 – How long crimes prescribe
RPC Article 91 – When prescription begins to run; interruption; resumption

3) The core rule: The prescriptive period depends on the penalty prescribed by law

For estafa, you do not start by asking “How many years is the prescriptive period for estafa?” in the abstract. You start by asking:

What penalty does the law prescribe for the specific kind of estafa alleged (and the amount involved, if relevant)?

That penalty classification determines the prescriptive period under RPC Article 90.

4) Prescriptive periods under the Revised Penal Code (Article 90)

Under the RPC, crimes generally prescribe as follows (organized by the penalty prescribed by law):

A. Crimes punishable by reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua, or death

➡️ 20 years

B. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties (e.g., prisión mayor)

➡️ 15 years

C. Crimes punishable by correctional penalties (e.g., prisión correccional, arresto mayor, etc.)

➡️ 10 years, except:

D. Crimes punishable by arresto mayor

➡️ 5 years

E. Light offenses

➡️ 2 months

Why this matters for estafa: Estafa penalties range widely—from arresto mayor at the low end to reclusion temporal (and in special forms, potentially heavier) at the high end. So the prescriptive period can be 5, 10, 15, or 20 years, depending on the case.

5) Estafa penalties: why amounts and the manner of commission matter

A. “Ordinary” estafa under Article 315

Estafa under Article 315 is typically grouped into modes such as:

With unfaithfulness/abuse of confidence (e.g., misappropriating money/property received in trust or on commission, or for administration)
By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts (deceit inducing the victim to part with money/property)
Through other fraudulent means (including certain checks-related scenarios, depending on facts)

For many Article 315 cases, the amount of damage/prejudice influences the penalty level. Over time, Congress has adjusted peso thresholds (notably through amendments such as those updating property-value brackets). The takeaway is:

The higher the amount (and depending on the mode), the higher the prescribed penalty—sometimes escalating into afflictive/serious ranges.

B. The “incremental penalty” concept in large-amount estafa

In high-value estafa, the law can impose a base penalty in a higher bracket and then add incremental years depending on excess amounts, subject to a cap. Once the prescribed penalty reaches the reclusion temporal range (or is treated as such for legal effects), the prescriptive period typically becomes 20 years.

Practical effect: Large-amount estafa commonly falls into a 15-year or 20-year prescriptive period, while smaller estafa often falls into 10 years or (less commonly) 5 years.

C. Other deceits and minor swindling variants

Certain “other deceits” (e.g., Article 318) may carry lower penalties, which can shorten the prescriptive period—sometimes down to 5 years if the prescribed penalty is only arresto mayor.

6) When does the prescriptive period start running? (Article 91)

General rule: From the day the crime is committed

Prescription begins to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, if the offense is not known at the time of commission.

This is crucial in estafa because many schemes are concealed. Victims often discover the fraud later—after audits, demand letters, failed deliveries, vanished investments, bounced representations, or broken accounting.

So there are two common start points:

If the estafa was known immediately:

Start counting from date of commission

If the estafa was not known immediately (concealed fraud):

Start counting from date of discovery by the offended party or authorities/agents

What “discovery” usually means in practice

Discovery is generally understood as the point when the victim (or authorities) learns facts indicating the commission of the offense, not necessarily when they learn every detail or identify all participants.

7) What interrupts (stops) prescription?

A. Filing a complaint generally interrupts prescription

Prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information in a manner recognized by law for commencing criminal proceedings.

In real-world estafa practice, the most common interruption point is:

Filing a criminal complaint/affidavit with the Office of the Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, or
Filing directly in court where allowed by procedure

Once properly filed, the prescriptive clock stops running.

B. What happens if the case is dismissed?

If proceedings are dismissed for reasons not placing the accused in jeopardy, the prescriptive period can run again, and the time that already elapsed may still count, depending on the procedural posture and the reason for dismissal.

Practical warning: A complaint filed too late cannot be “revived” by filing again. And a complaint filed on time can still face prescription issues if it is dismissed and re-filed after the remaining time has lapsed.

8) Special situations that affect computation in estafa

A. Continuing or “continuing” estafa scenarios

Some estafa fact patterns involve multiple acts over time:

Repeated collections under a single scheme
Rolling misappropriations
Series of fraudulent withdrawals
Multiple deliveries/transactions forming one design

When the law treats conduct as a continuing offense, the prescriptive period may be counted from the last act or the point the offense is deemed completed.

B. Multiple victims / multiple transactions

Whether there is one estafa or several estafa cases can affect prescription because each count can have its own:

date of commission/discovery, and
applicable penalty bracket (and thus prescriptive period)

C. Estafa vs. B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

Many “check cases” involve two possible criminal tracks:

Estafa (RPC) – requires elements like deceit/damage and the specific mode under Article 315
B.P. 22 – a special law offense with its own prescriptive period rules (special laws are generally governed by Act No. 3326 on prescription, not RPC Article 90)

It’s common for the same transaction to generate:

a B.P. 22 case, and/or
an estafa case (depending on facts)

Key point: Do not assume the same prescriptive period applies to both. Estafa (RPC) follows RPC Articles 90–91; B.P. 22 (special law) follows special-law prescription rules.

D. Syndicated estafa / large-scale schemes

Some estafa schemes may be charged in forms treated more seriously by law (e.g., those involving groups, investment-taking structures, or large-scale victimization), which can dramatically increase penalties—and therefore extend prescription (often into the 15-year or 20-year range).

Because these classifications are fact-sensitive, the applicable prescriptive period must be matched to the exact charge and its penalty.

9) A practical way to determine the prescriptive period for a specific estafa complaint

Use this step-by-step approach:

Step 1: Identify the exact charge and mode

Article 315 (which paragraph/subparagraph?)
Article 316?
Article 318?
Any alleged qualifying/aggregating circumstance?

Step 2: Determine the penalty prescribed by law

Consider:

The nature of the act (misappropriation? deceit? fraudulent act?)
The amount of damage/prejudice (where relevant)
Any special classification asserted by the prosecution

Step 3: Match the penalty to Article 90

Reclusion temporal / reclusion perpetua / death → 20 years
Prisión mayor (afflictive) → 15 years
Prisión correccional (correctional) → 10 years
Arresto mayor → 5 years

Step 4: Determine when the period started (Article 91)

Date of commission, or
Date of discovery (if concealed)

Step 5: Check for interruption

When was the complaint filed for preliminary investigation or in court?
Was it filed properly and timely?

10) Common misconceptions in estafa prescription

“Estafa always prescribes in 10 years.” Not true. It can be 5, 10, 15, or 20 years depending on the penalty.
“Counting always starts on the date of the transaction.” Not always. If the fraud was concealed, counting may begin upon discovery.
“A demand letter stops prescription.” A demand letter may be important evidence, but it does not automatically interrupt criminal prescription. Interruption generally requires commencement of criminal proceedings (e.g., filing a complaint with the prosecutor).
“If the victim negotiates or accepts partial payments, prescription resets.” Partial payments may affect civil obligations and factual inferences, but criminal prescription is governed by Articles 90–91 and interruption rules—not private arrangements alone.

11) Relationship to civil actions and collection suits

Even if an estafa case is time-barred, a victim may still have civil remedies, such as:

Collection of sum of money (contract/obligation)
Damages
Actions based on quasi-delict (depending on facts)

But the prescriptive period for civil actions is governed by civil law rules and may differ significantly from criminal prescription. Also, the civil action impliedly instituted with the criminal case has procedural consequences if the criminal case is not pursued.

12) Practical pointers for complainants and respondents

For complainants (victims)

Document the discovery date: emails, messages, audit findings, demand letters, admissions, bank return memos, delivery failures, etc.
File promptly with the prosecutor; do not wait for negotiations to “finish.”
Be precise in identifying the mode under Article 315 (misappropriation vs deceit), since it shapes both elements and penalty.

For respondents (accused)

Evaluate whether:
- the wrong prescriptive period was assumed,
- the start date should be commission rather than discovery (or vice versa),
- the complaint was filed late, or
- proceedings were dismissed and re-filed beyond the remaining time
Prescription is typically raised through appropriate motions at the proper stage.

13) Quick reference cheat-sheet (conceptual)

Low-penalty estafa-like deceit → may prescribe in 5 years
Typical estafa (correctional penalty range) → often 10 years
Higher-value / higher-penalty estafa (afflictive) → often 15 years
Very large / heavily penalized estafa (reclusion temporal range) → often 20 years
Start date: commission or discovery (if concealed)
Interruption: usually by filing a criminal complaint/information in the proper forum

14) Final note

Because estafa prescription is penalty-driven and fact-sensitive, two cases both called “estafa” can have different prescriptive periods and different start dates. The correct answer depends on: (1) the exact statutory mode charged, (2) the prescribed penalty given the amount and circumstances, (3) when the offense was discovered, and (4) whether and when filing interrupted prescription.

This article is for general legal information in the Philippine context and is not a substitute for advice on a specific case.