1) Estafa in context: what the prosecutor is looking for

“Estafa” (swindling) is primarily punished under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, with related fraud provisions in Article 316. In real practice, most estafa complaints fall into a few recurring fact patterns:

Misappropriation / conversion of money or property received in trust (often described as “abuse of confidence”)
Deceit / false pretenses inducing the victim to hand over money or property (e.g., fake sale, fake investment, fake authority)
Fraud involving checks (sometimes overlaps with B.P. Blg. 22, which is a separate offense)

What matters for probable cause is not the label “scam” or “fraud,” but whether the sworn allegations and attachments show a probability that (a) an estafa mode was committed and (b) the respondent probably committed it.

2) What “probable cause” means (and what it does not)

A. Probable cause is a probability standard

Probable cause is a reasonable belief, based on facts and evidence presented, that:

a crime has been committed, and
the respondent is probably guilty.

It is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutor does not conduct a full trial at preliminary investigation.

B. Two different probable cause determinations in criminal cases

In Philippine procedure, there are commonly two “probable cause” checkpoints:

Executive determination (Prosecutor) – “probable cause to charge” This is the prosecutor’s finding during preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure). If found, the prosecutor files an Information in court.
Judicial determination (Judge) – “probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest” After the Information is filed, the judge personally evaluates probable cause to decide whether to issue a warrant of arrest (constitutional requirement; the judge cannot merely rely on the prosecutor’s conclusion).

Key takeaway: You can have probable cause to file an Information but still have a judge require more before issuing a warrant (or issue a warrant but later dismiss for legal defects). They are related but distinct.

3) Where probable cause is evaluated in the estafa “filing” timeline

A. Filing begins with a sworn complaint at the prosecutor’s office

A private complainant usually starts by filing:

Complaint-Affidavit (sworn narration of facts)
Supporting affidavits (if any witnesses)
Annexes (documents, screenshots, receipts, demand letters, etc.)

The prosecutor issues subpoenas and conducts a preliminary investigation (if required).

B. Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112)

Preliminary investigation is generally required for offenses where the penalty can be more than the threshold requiring it (common in many estafa cases depending on amount). The process is affidavit-based:

Complainant files complaint-affidavit + annexes
Respondent files counter-affidavit + annexes
Complainant may reply; respondent may rejoinder (often discretionary/limited)
Prosecutor evaluates probable cause and issues a Resolution
If probable cause exists: Information is filed in court

4) The “probable cause checklist” for estafa: you must show the elements

To establish probable cause, your affidavits and annexes must cover all essential elements of the specific estafa mode you are invoking. Missing even one essential element commonly results in dismissal for being civil, incomplete, or unsupported.

Below are the most used estafa modes and what a prosecutor typically needs to see.

5) Probable cause requirements by common estafa mode

A) Estafa by misappropriation / conversion (abuse of confidence)

This is the frequent pattern where the victim says: “I gave money/property for a specific purpose; the person failed to account and kept it.”

Essential elements (practical framing)

To show probable cause, the complaint must generally establish:

Receipt of money/property by the respondent
- The respondent received money, goods, or property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under an obligation to return or deliver.
Misappropriation, conversion, or denial of receipt
- The respondent used it as if it were their own, diverted it, disposed of it, or refused to return/deliver/account; or denied receiving it.
Prejudice/damage to the complainant
- Loss of money/property, or impairment of rights.
Demand (highly important in practice)
- While “demand” is not always treated as an absolute statutory element in every scenario, it is a critical evidentiary fact: refusal/failure to return after demand strongly supports conversion and criminal intent. Many complaints fail because demand is missing, unclear, or not provable.

Typical “probable cause” annexes

Proof of receipt: bank transfer records, acknowledgment receipts, delivery receipts, signed inventory, chat admissions (“nareceive ko na”), remittance slips
Proof of trust/obligation: written agreement, agency/consignment terms, instruction messages, invoice terms (“for delivery to X,” “for purchase of Y”)
Proof of demand: demand letter, email, chat demand + seen status, proof of receipt, barangay summons notes
Proof of refusal/failure: respondent’s refusal messages, excuses + non-return, blocking, ignoring after demand

Common reasons prosecutors dismiss for lack of probable cause

The facts look like a loan (debtor-creditor relationship) rather than a trust/agency obligation
No clear obligation to return the same thing or deliver property to a third party
No credible showing of conversion (mere delay, vague allegations)
Demand is absent or not documented

B) Estafa by deceit / false pretenses (fraudulent inducement)

This is the classic “online scam,” fake seller, fake investment pitch, or misrepresentation that induced payment.

Essential elements (practical framing)

To show probable cause, the complaint must generally establish:

Deceit or fraudulent representation (false pretense, fraudulent act)
- The respondent made a false claim about a past or existing fact (e.g., “I have stocks on hand,” “I am authorized,” “This is legitimate,” “This is authentic,” “Your slot is secured,” “This is a licensed investment,” etc.) or used a fraudulent scheme.
The deceit induced the complainant to part with money/property
- The complainant relied on the misrepresentation and paid/transferred/delivered property.
Damage or prejudice
- Loss of money/property or impairment of rights.
Deceit existed at the time of the transaction
- Prosecutors look for facts showing the respondent intended to defraud from the start, not merely failed later due to business problems.

Typical “probable cause” annexes

Screenshots of the representation: ads/listings, pitch decks, chat statements, voice messages (documented), “guaranteed” claims
Proof of payment: transaction records, receipts, bank confirmations
Proof of non-delivery/non-performance: absence of shipment, fake tracking, repeated excuses, account disappearance, blocking
Pattern evidence (strong): other victims’ affidavits, multiple identical complaints, same bank/wallet used repeatedly, same script, fake IDs reused

Common reasons prosecutors dismiss for lack of probable cause

Alleged misrepresentation is future-looking only (e.g., “I will deliver next week”) without showing it was false at inception
The dispute is framed like a mere breach of contract without facts proving deceit
Evidence of reliance is weak (no clear causal link between representation and payment)
Identity linkage is weak (cannot credibly tie the respondent to the account that received funds)

C) Estafa involving checks (and the B.P. 22 overlap)

Checks can appear in estafa cases in two ways:

The check was used as part of a fraudulent scheme (e.g., to obtain goods/money), or
The check was issued in payment but bounced, and the circumstances suggest deceit.

B.P. 22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check under certain conditions and has different requirements. Prosecutors often evaluate whether the facts fit estafa, B.P. 22, or both.

What prosecutors look for to support estafa (not just bouncing)

The check was used to induce the complainant to part with property/money
There are facts showing fraudulent intent or deceit connected to the issuance or use of the check
The complainant suffered damage because they relied on the check

Common documentary requirements (often critical)

The original check (or certified copy, depending on context)
Bank dishonor memo/return slip (reason for dishonor)
Proof of notice of dishonor and timelines (more prominent in B.P. 22 practice)
Proof that goods/money were delivered because of reliance on the check

6) What makes an estafa complaint “probable cause ready”

Prosecutors decide probable cause on what is properly alleged and supported. The strongest complaint affidavits usually include:

A. A tight chronology with dates and transaction identifiers

Date/time of agreement
Exact representations made (quote or attach screenshots)
Payment date/time, reference numbers, receiving account details
Date of expected delivery/return
Follow-ups
Demand date and respondent’s reaction
Final loss amount and how computed

B. Direct linkage between the respondent and the fraudulent account/activity

Identity linkage is a frequent weakness in online cases. Strengtheners include:

Same name used across accounts + admissions in chat
Delivery address, meetups, IDs shown
“KYC” name matching wallet/bank account holder
Consistent phone number/email used
Witness who personally dealt with respondent
Courier pickup records (where available)

C. Evidence of deceit or conversion, not just non-performance

Fake tracking numbers
Contradictory claims
Blocking immediately after payment
Multiple victims
Denial of receipt despite payment proof
Use of “mule” accounts plus coordinated communications

7) The difference between “civil liability” and “criminal estafa” (a core probable cause issue)

A major cause of dismissal is the prosecutor’s finding that the facts describe a civil dispute (breach of contract, unpaid debt) rather than estafa.

Practical distinction prosecutors apply

Civil breach: failure to pay/deliver because of inability, business loss, or later dispute without clear deceit at inception or conversion of entrusted property.
Estafa: evidence of deceit at the start (false pretenses) or conversion of entrusted property (abuse of confidence), with damage.

Restitution does not automatically erase criminality

Payment/refund after the fact may reduce conflict and sometimes influences prosecutorial discretion, but criminal liability is generally not extinguished merely by repayment if the elements were present.

8) Who determines probable cause, and what they can (and cannot) do

A. Prosecutor’s role (preliminary investigation)

Evaluates affidavits and annexes
Determines whether there is probable cause to charge
Does not decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Does not typically conduct full evidentiary hearings; it’s largely paper-based

B. Judge’s role (after filing)

Determines probable cause for issuance of a warrant
Personally evaluates the prosecutor’s resolution and evidence; may require additional supporting documents, may dismiss for legal defects

9) Venue and jurisdiction issues that affect filing (and can kill a case early)

Even with strong facts, a case can be dismissed or delayed if filed in the wrong place.

A. Venue in criminal cases

Criminal actions are generally filed where:

the crime was committed, or
any essential element occurred.

For online transactions, elements may occur where payment was made/received, where the victim was when deceived, or where delivery was due—facts matter. A complaint that fails to allege where the deceptive acts were received/relied upon can invite procedural objections.

B. Amount affects penalty (and sometimes procedure)

Estafa penalties are calibrated by the amount involved and the specific mode. The complaint should clearly state:

total amount lost
breakdown by transaction (especially if multiple transfers)

10) Drafting the complaint-affidavit to satisfy probable cause (structure that works)

A common effective structure:

Parties and identifiers
- Your details
- Respondent’s details (real name, aliases, phone, email, account numbers, URLs)
Narrative (chronological, numbered paragraphs)
- How contact occurred
- Exact representations and attachments (“Annex A”)
- Payment details (“Annex B”)
- Expected delivery/return obligation
- Non-delivery/refusal/denial
- Demand and response (“Annex C”)
Element-by-element allegation
- A short section that explicitly ties facts to the estafa mode’s elements:
  - deceit/false pretense → reliance → payment → damage
  - or receipt in trust → obligation → conversion/refusal after demand → damage
Prayer
- Finding of probable cause and filing of Information
- Other reliefs as allowed by rules
Annex index
- Clean list of evidence with labels and short descriptions

11) Common “probable cause blockers” (and how they appear in estafa complaints)

Unclear theory of the case
- Complaint mixes “loan,” “investment,” “purchase,” “entrustment” without clarifying the legal relationship.
No proof of payment or receipt
- Cash handoffs without receipt; screenshots that don’t show sender/recipient details; missing reference numbers.
No demand (for abuse-of-confidence cases)
- Victim demanded verbally only and cannot show it; or demanded from the wrong person.
Screenshots without authentication context
- Cropped images that omit usernames, timestamps, URLs, or message continuity.
Weak identity linkage
- Payment went to a third party; respondent is alleged only by a social media handle with no corroborating identifiers.
Facts show mere delay
- Respondent still communicates and offers performance; no strong indicators of deceit/conversion.

12) After a finding of no probable cause: procedural remedies (typical options)

When the prosecutor dismisses for lack of probable cause, complainants commonly resort to:

Motion for Reconsideration (within the prosecutor’s office, subject to rules and timelines)
Appeal / Petition for Review to the Department of Justice (for cases under DOJ supervision; specifics depend on office and rules)
In some situations, court remedies may be pursued if there is grave abuse of discretion, but these are technical and case-specific.

Deadlines and allowed remedies are highly procedural—missing them can forfeit the challenge.

13) Practical evidence standards for electronic transactions

Philippine law and rules recognize electronic documents and messages. For probable cause purposes, prosecutors are typically persuaded by:

complete chat threads showing the transaction, not isolated lines
transaction confirmations from banks/e-wallets
platform order details and dispute tickets
consistent identifiers (same number/email across accounts)
witness affidavits (e.g., someone who observed the deal or communications)

Organize evidence so that a reviewer can verify:

who said what
when
to whom
what was paid
what was promised
what failed
what demand was made
what damage resulted

14) Quick “probable cause test” you can apply before filing

An estafa complaint is typically “probable cause ready” when, for the specific mode alleged, you can answer yes to all:

Deceit-based estafa

Do I have proof of a concrete false representation or fraudulent scheme?
Can I show I relied on it in paying/transferring?
Can I show loss/damage?
Do the facts indicate the deceit existed at the start (not just later failure)?

Misappropriation-based estafa

Can I show the respondent received money/property in trust/agency/obligation to return or deliver?
Can I show conversion/refusal/denial of receipt?
Can I show damage?
Can I prove demand and non-compliance (or equivalent acts clearly showing conversion)?

If any answer is “no,” prosecutors commonly find the case civil, incomplete, or unsupported—and dismiss for lack of probable cause.

15) Bottom line

To file (and sustain) an estafa case through the probable cause stage in the Philippines, the complaint must do more than show you were harmed; it must fit a specific estafa mode and present sworn, organized, and annex-supported facts covering every essential element—especially deceit at inception (for scam/fake sale types) or entrustment plus conversion and demand (for abuse-of-confidence types).