Here’s why “debt cases” sometimes end up at a Philippine prosecutor’s office (City/Provincial Prosecutor), even though the Constitution bans jailing someone for simple non-payment of debt:

Debt is civil—but some debt-related acts are crimes The Constitution protects people from imprisonment for mere non-payment of a debt. That’s why ordinary collection suits go to civil courts, not to prosecutors. (RESPICIO & CO.)
A complaint goes to the prosecutor when the facts alleged amount to a crime tied to the debt Common examples:
- Estafa (swindling, Art. 315, RPC) — e.g., obtaining money through false pretenses or abuse of confidence/misappropriation; deceit must exist at or before the time the money/property was obtained. Mere failure to pay later is not estafa. (Judiciary eLibrary)
- Bouncing checks (B.P. Blg. 22) — making/issuing a check that’s later dishonored, with legal notice of dishonor and failure to pay within five banking days. (This is a special criminal law separate from estafa.) (Judiciary eLibrary)
- Trust receipts (P.D. 115) — misusing or not turning over goods or proceeds received under a trust receipt can be prosecuted (often framed as estafa/PD 115 violation). (Lawphil)
Why the prosecutor’s office specifically? Before criminal charges go to court, the law requires preliminary investigation for offenses punishable by at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day (which estafa/PD115 usually meet). Prosecutors conduct this screening to decide if probable cause exists and, if so, they file an Information in court. (Supreme Court of the Philippines)

Note: In 2024 the Supreme Court recognized DOJ authority to issue the 2024 DOJ-NPS Rules on Preliminary Investigations and Inquest, which now govern how prosecutors handle these proceedings operationally. (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
When prosecutors won’t file a “debt” complaint If the papers only show breach of contract / non-payment with no deceit, misappropriation, or BP 22 element, the matter is civil and is typically dismissed at the prosecutor level. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said mere failure to pay does not make estafa. (Lawphil)
Where purely civil debt cases should go instead
- Small Claims / Expedited Procedures in first-level courts for money claims ≤ ₱1,000,000 (exclusive of interest/costs). (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
- Regular civil actions (collection of sum of money) for larger or more complex claims. (Criminal procedure rules also keep civil actions distinct from crimes.) (Lawphil)

Quick self-check before going to the prosecutor

Was there fraud at the start (lies/false pretenses) or abuse of confidence/misappropriation? → possibly estafa. (Judiciary eLibrary)
Was a check issued and dishonored, and did the issuer get written notice but still fail to pay within 5 banking days? → possibly BP 22. (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Is there a trust receipt that wasn’t complied with? → possibly PD 115/estafa. (Lawphil)
If none of the above, it’s likely a civil case (small claims/collection), not for the prosecutor. (RESPICIO & CO.)

If you want, tell me the basics of your situation (e.g., was there a bounced check? any demand letters sent?), and I’ll map it to the right path—criminal complaint vs. civil collection—and list the exact documents you’d typically prepare for either route.