The unauthorized use, taking, or misappropriation of another person's money is one of the most commonly prosecuted property crimes in the Philippines. Depending on the exact circumstances — particularly whether the offender obtained possession lawfully (through trust, employment, or agency) or unlawfully — the crime may be classified as estafa (swindling) under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, theft (simple or qualified) under Articles 308–310, or, in special cases, violations of special penal laws such as the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Access Devices Regulation Act, or the Securities Regulation Code.

This article exhaustively discusses all possible criminal classifications, their elements, penalties, prescriptive periods, jurisprudential rules on concurrence and distinction, and related special laws.

1. Estafa Through Misappropriation or Conversion (Art. 315, par. 1(b), Revised Penal Code)

This is by far the most common charge when money is lawfully received by the offender under an obligation to return or apply it for a specific purpose, but the offender instead appropriates it for personal use.

Elements (as consistently ruled by the Supreme Court):

The offender received money, goods, or other personal property;
He received it in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or return the same;
He misappropriated or converted it to the prejudice of another;
There is demand by the offended party (jurisprudence holds that demand is not necessary when misappropriation is obvious, but it is strong evidence of conversion).

Key Jurisprudential Rules:

Possession of the money must be juridical, not merely material. This means the owner transferred possession with the expectation of return or specific application (e.g., money given for safekeeping, for investment, for payment to a third party, salary advances, collections by an agent or employee).
Even if the obligation is guaranteed by a bond or is civil in nature, criminal liability still attaches.
Denial of receipt ("I never received it") after having received it also constitutes estafa under the same paragraph.
The crime is consummated the moment the offender uses the money for personal purposes with intent to gain and prejudice the owner.

Penalty (as amended by R.A. 10951, effective 2017):

The penalty is now based on the value of the money misappropriated:

Amount Involved	Penalty
≤ ₱40,000	Prisión correccional minimum (6 mos 1 day – 2 yrs 4 mos)
> ₱40,000 but ≤ ₱1,200,000	Prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum (2 yrs 4 mos 1 day – 8 yrs) + 1 year for each additional ₱2,000,000 (max increase 20 years)
> ₱1,200,000 but ≤ ₱4,400,000	Prisión mayor maximum to reclusión temporal minimum (10 yrs 1 day – 14 yrs 8 mos)
> ₱4,400,000 but ≤ ₱16,400,000	Reclusión temporal medium to maximum (14 yrs 8 mos 1 day – 20 yrs)
> ₱16,400,000	Reclusión perpetua

Civil liability: actual damages + legal interest (6% per annum from judicial demand, 2025 rate).

Prescriptive period: 20 years for amounts that carry reclusión temporal or higher; otherwise 15 or 10 years depending on the imposable penalty.

2. Theft (Art. 308) and Qualified Theft (Art. 310)

When money is taken without the owner's consent and there was no prior lawful possession (no trust relationship), the crime is theft.

Common scenarios constituting theft rather than estafa:

Secretly taking cash from a wallet, drawer, or table.
Unauthorized ATM withdrawal using a stolen card or PIN obtained without consent.
Taking money from a vault or cash register without any color of authority.

Qualified Theft (higher penalty) when committed with:

Grave abuse of confidence (e.g., household helper, long-trusted employee, close relative given access).
With the use of a motor vehicle, or on a street, or by breaking in.

Penalty for qualified theft follows the same value-based scale as estafa under R.A. 10951, but one degree higher than simple theft.

Crucial Distinction Between Estafa and Theft (Supreme Court doctrine since U.S. v. Reyes, 1910, reaffirmed in countless cases such as Tubb v. People, 2018):

If possession was lawfully obtained (juridical possession) → estafa.
If possession was obtained without consent (only material/physical possession) → theft.
An accused charged with estafa cannot be convicted of theft under the same information, and vice versa, because the crimes are mutually exclusive (Gamboa v. CA, 1975; People v. Isaac, 2022).

3. Syndicated Estafa (P.D. 1689, as amended)

When the estafa is committed by a syndicate (five or more persons banded together) and the amount exceeds ₱100,000, the penalty is reclusión perpetua regardless of the actual amount misappropriated.

Commonly used in large-scale investment scams, pyramid schemes, or corporate frauds where money is collected under false pretenses of high returns.

4. Special Penal Laws That May Apply

A. Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998 (R.A. 8484, as amended)

Unauthorized use of credit/debit/ATM cards or account numbers:

Penalty: ₱100,000 fine + 6–12 years imprisonment.

B. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175, as amended by R.A. 10951)

Computer-related fraud (Sec. 4(a)(3)): Unauthorized input, alteration, deletion of data resulting in inauthentic data with intent to gain → same penalty as estafa under RPC.
Computer-related identity theft or unauthorized access to bank accounts → additional penalties.

C. Securities Regulation Code (R.A. 8799)

Section 26: Fraud in connection with securities transactions (e.g., ponzi schemes, fake investment contracts) → up to 21 years imprisonment + fine up to ₱5 million.

D. Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. 9160, as amended)

If the unauthorized use involves laundering (e.g., transferring stolen funds through multiple accounts), additional prosecution for money laundering (penalty one degree higher than the predicate crime).

E. B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

If the offender issues a check against an account he knowingly emptied or never funded, separate prosecution for B.P. 22 (₱200,000–₱2,000,000 fine or 30 days to 1 year imprisonment per check).

5. Civil Liability in All Cases

Regardless of the criminal classification, the offender is always civilly liable for:

Return of the money or its value;
Legal interest (6% from demand or filing of case);
Attorney's fees and costs of suit if the complainant engaged counsel.

6. Procedural Notes

Complaint must be filed with the Office of the Prosecutor (not directly in court).
For estafa, the complaint-affidavit must allege the specific trust relationship or obligation.
Private crime: estafa and theft are prosecuted upon complaint of the offended party (except when committed against minors or if the offender is a public officer).
Venue: where the money was received, or where the misappropriation occurred, or where the prejudice was felt.

Conclusion

In Philippine criminal law, the unauthorized use of another's money is almost always punishable, with the precise classification turning on the single question: Was possession originally obtained lawfully through trust or obligation? If yes → estafa (most common). If no → theft. Large-scale or technologically facilitated schemes attract heavier penalties under special laws.

The penalties have become significantly more severe since the 2017 amendments (R.A. 10951), and the Supreme Court continues to impose the maximum penalties in syndicated and investment-related cases to deter the rampant "budol-budol" and online financial scams plaguing the country.