Prescriptive Periods for Fraud-Related Complaints in Philippine Law (A practitioner-oriented survey as of 20 June 2025)

1. Why “prescription” matters

“Prescription” (a.k.a. statute of limitations) fixes the outer time‐limit for filing a case. Once the period lapses, the claim is forever barred, no matter how meritorious it may have been. Philippine law distinguishes:

Field	Governing source	Name of period
Criminal (e.g., estafa)	Art. 90-92, Revised Penal Code (RPC)	Prescription of offenses
Civil (e.g., annulment, reconveyance, damages)	Arts. 1144-1155, 1389-1391 Civil Code	Prescription of actions
Special penal laws (e.g., Securities Regulation Code fraud, Tax Code fraud)	The special law + Rep. Act 3326 (gap-filler)	Statutory or RA 3326 periods
Administrative (e.g., customs, tax assessments)	Specific charter (NIRC, CMTA, etc.)	Limitation or assessment period

Each clock runs differently; the table below summarises the most litigated scenarios.

2. Fraud as a crime: estafa and kin

2.1 Core provisions

Estafa/Swindling – Art. 315 RPC (misappropriation, deceit, bouncing cheque variant, etc.)
Other RPC frauds – e.g., falsification (Arts. 171-172), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 318), credit card fraud (Art. 315 §2-d as amended)
Special laws –
- Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799 § 63)
- Cyber-fraud (RA 10175 + Art. 315)
- Access Devices Regulation Act (RA 8484 § 23)
- B.P. 22 (bouncing cheques) – technically not “fraud” but often pleaded together

2.2 How long before the State loses the right to prosecute?

The penalty actually prescribed—not the amount of time the accused ultimately serves—dictates the prescriptive period (Art. 90 RPC). After RA 10951 (2017) readjusted money thresholds, penalties (and thus prescription) now align roughly as follows:

Estafa amount	Penalty range (Art. 315 as amended)	RPC class	Prescription of offense
> ₱2,000,000	Prisión mayor max. – reclusión temporal min.	Afflictive	15 years
₱1,200,000.01 – 2 M	Prisión correccional max. – prisión mayor min.	Afflictive/correctional	15 yrs (if any portion ≥ prisión mayor) 10 yrs (if wholly prisión correccional)
₱40,000.01 – 1,200,000	Prisión correccional min.–med.	Correctional	10 years
≤ ₱40,000	Arresto mayor max. – prisión correccional min.	Correctional	10 yrs (if prisión correccional appears) 5 years (if only arresto mayor)

Light fraud-type offenses (e.g., “other deceits,” Art. 318 punishes with arresto menor) prescribe in 2 years.

Special notes

When the clock starts: “from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents” (Art. 91). Fraud is often hidden; discovery-date is therefore pivotal.
Interruption: Filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office, barangay, or any court stops the running; it resumes if proceedings are dismissed without conviction or acquittal.
Absence: When the offender is outside the Philippines, prescription does not run (Art. 91, last par.)—crucial in investment scams where suspects flee.
Complex/continuing crimes: Each swindling transaction triggers its own clock unless the factual pattern is “delito continuado.”

2.3 Fraud under special penal laws

Absent a bespoke period, Republic Act 3326 supplies the gaps:

Penalty under the special law	RA 3326 prescription
Imprisonment > 6 years	12 years
Imprisonment 1 – 6 years	8 years
Imprisonment ≤ 1 year, or fine only	4 years

Examples:

B.P. 22 (up to 1 year ⇒ 4 yrs)
RA 8484 fraudulent credit-card use (6 – 12 yrs ⇒ 12 yrs)
RA 8799 securities fraud – statute built into § 63: “within 5 years from discovery but in no case more than 10 years from commission.” That latter “long-stop” overrides RA 3326.

3. Fraud as a civil cause of action

Civil claim	Basis	Period	When period begins
Annulment of voidable contract (vitiated by fraud)	Art. 1390-1391 CC	4 years	From discovery of fraud (or from majority if incapacity)
Rescission of rescissible contract (fraud causing lesion)	Art. 1389	4 years	From date of contract (rescission is a remedy despite validity)
Action for fraud or mistake damages	Art. 1146 (injury to rights)	4 years	From discovery or accrual of cause
Reconveyance of property / cancellation of title based on fraud	Implied trust doctrine (Art. 1456)	4 years from discovery but not beyond 10 years from issuance of Torrens title (Supreme Court: Vda. de Oñate v. CA, Ferrochem v. Monterra)
Quieting of title (true owner in possession)	Art. 476	Imprescriptible so long as owner remains in possession
Quasi-delictual fraud	Art. 1146	4 yrs	From injury
Contractual fraud clause (pactum fiduciae)	Written contract	10 years (Art. 1144 (1))	From breach

Rule of thumb: If the Civil Code gives you the fraud remedy, expect four (4) years from discovery; if you are suing on a written contract that contains a fraudulent breach, you typically have ten (10) years.

4. Administrative & tax fraud highlights

BIR civil and criminal tax fraud – Assessment must be issued within 10 years from discovery (NIRC § 222 (c)). Criminal action: 5 years from assessment.
Customs fraud under CMTA 2016 – Collection suit: 3 years from date of final payment; criminal: follow RA 10863 provisions (generally 5 yrs).
GSIS/SSS fraud – governed by their charters; typical criminal period follows RPC (estafa by agent) or RA 3326 (if under charter).

5. Key jurisprudence cheat-sheet

Case	G.R. No.	Holding on prescription
People v. Malabanan (2013)	170492	Estafa prescribed in 5 yrs because penalty receivable only arresto mayor after RA 10951; complaint filed after 6 yrs dismissed.
People v. Dizon (2015)	188291	Fraud discovered by corporate audit in 2004; complaint in 2007—within 15-yr period → trial may proceed.
Sesbreno v. CA (2000)	135314	Reconveyance based on fraud must be filed within 4 yrs from issuance of OCT/TCT or discovery, but absolute cut-off is 10 yrs.
Spouses Palanca v. Spouses Fernandez (2010)	158238	Distinguishes action to quiet title (imprescriptible) from reconveyance -- same facts may merit one or the other depending on possession.
Brillante v. Court of Appeals (1997)	118757	B.P. 22 offense prescribes under RA 3326 (then 4 yrs); filing with barangay does not toll because Lupon lacks jurisdiction over B.P. 22 (no compromise).

6. Practical compliance tips

Pin down the penalty first. For criminal estafa, compute the amount with RA 10951 brackets to know whether the prescriptive clock is 15, 10, or 5 years.
Document the “date of discovery.” In fraud, discovery frequently determines timeliness; keep audit reports, demand letters, or board resolutions that reveal when misappropriation surfaced.
File—even if only to toll. A verified complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor is enough to interrupt prescription; perfection-of-form is less important than beating the deadline.
Beware of compromise talks. Negotiation does not suspend the period unless a complaint is already pending.
For property cases, act within 4 years of discovering the forged deed—and in any event within 10 years of the Torrens title issuance—to avoid dismissal of a reconveyance suit.
Cross-check special statutes. Securities, banking, and cyber crimes often carry shorter discovery-plus-long-stop formulas (e.g., 5 years/10 years in RA 8799).
If the suspect is abroad, secure proof of departure/arrival; prescription tolls while the accused is outside Philippine territory.

7. Conclusion

Philippine law treats “fraud” as a chameleon—sometimes a crime, sometimes a civil wrong, sometimes both. Correspondingly, no single prescriptive period governs all fraud complaints. The decisive factors are:

Nature of proceeding (criminal, civil, administrative);
Statutory penalty or remedy invoked;
Date of discovery vs. date of commission; and
Interrupting or suspensive events (filing, absence, force majeure, etc.).

Mastery of these moving parts lets counsel file (or defend) timely—and avoid the fatal blow of prescription.

Disclaimer: This article is for legal information only and does not substitute for tailored professional advice.