Unauthorized use of money — commonly understood as the misappropriation, conversion, embezzlement, or illegal disposition of funds or money that lawfully belongs to another person or entity — is a serious criminal offense in the Philippines. Depending on the circumstances, the act can be prosecuted under several provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), special penal laws, or a combination thereof. This article exhaustively discusses all possible criminal charges, their elements, penalties, jurisprudential nuances, and related doctrines under Philippine law.

1. Estafa Through Misappropriation or Conversion

(Article 315, paragraph 1(b), Revised Penal Code – the most common charge)

Elements

That money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt;
That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender (jurisprudence dispenses with demand when it is futile or when the misappropriation is already evident).

Typical Scenarios

Employee or cashier who pockets company collections
Agent or broker who uses client’s money for personal purposes
Attorney who misuses client’s funds held in escrow
Corporate officer who diverts corporate funds to personal accounts
Person entrusted with money for a specific investment who uses it otherwise

Penalty (based on value of the thing misappropriated – “reclusion temporal” scale)

Up to P40,000 → prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum
Over P22,000,000 → reclusion perpetua
Plus incremental penalties for every additional P10,000 (but the total penalty shall not exceed 30 years in most computations).

Important Doctrines

Juridical possession transfers to the recipient; hence the crime is estafa, not theft (People v. Locson, 1928).
Demand is not necessary when the offender’s acts already clearly show conversion (Tubb v. People, 1957; U.S. v. Ramirez, 1908).
Subsequent payment or restitution does not extinguish criminal liability, though it is mitigating (People v. Menil, 2001).
The “control test”: if the offender has unrestricted access and discretion over the funds (e.g., corporate treasurer), it is still estafa if there was an obligation to return or apply the funds to a specific purpose.

2. Qualified Theft

(Articles 308, 309, and 310, Revised Penal Code)

When the offender has only material (physical) possession but not juridical possession of the money, the crime is theft. It becomes qualified (and penalty is two degrees higher) when committed with grave abuse of confidence.

Examples

Domestic helper who steals cash from employer’s drawer
Bank teller who pockets cash from the vault during banking hours
Security guard or driver entrusted with collections who runs away with the money

Penalty for Qualified Theft of Money
Same graduated scale as estafa, but starts two degrees higher. For very large amounts, it can also reach reclusion perpetua.

Key Distinction Between Estafa and Qualified Theft
Estafa → offender received the money lawfully with an obligation to return/deliver it (juridical possession).
Qualified Theft → offender had mere physical custody; ownership and juridical possession never transferred (e.g., money left on table, or cash in drawer that employee has access to but no authority to dispose).

Supreme Court ruling (Chua-Burce v. CA, 2000): If the employer gave the employee blanket authority to manage funds without specific instructions on every disbursement, the crime is qualified theft, not estafa.

3. Malversation of Public Funds or Property

(Article 217, Revised Penal Code – for public officers or employees)

Elements

Offender is a public officer;
He has custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office;
Those funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable;
He appropriated, took, misappropriated them, or through abandonment or negligence permitted another to do so.

Penalty
Same as estafa/theft graduated scale, plus perpetual special disqualification and fine equal to the amount malversed.

Important Notes

Private individuals who conspire with the public officer are also liable as principals (Art. 222).
Even if the funds were later returned, criminal liability remains (only mitigates the penalty).
The crime is consummated by mere misappropriation; no need for personal profit (Torres v. People, 2018).

4. Plunder

(Republic Act No. 7080, as amended)

When a public officer, through a combination or series of overt criminal acts, amasses ill-gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000, the charge is plunder.

Unauthorized diversion or misuse of public funds is usually one of the predicate acts in plunder cases (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 2001).

Penalty: Reclusion perpetua to death (death penalty portion is currently inoperative).

5. Violation of the Trust Receipts Law

(Presidential Decree No. 115)

Failure to turn over proceeds of sale or to return the goods/money under a trust receipt agreement is penalized as estafa.

Penalty: Same as estafa under the RPC, or up to 30 years for large amounts.

Most banks now charge this in conjunction with ordinary estafa.

6. Illegal Use of Credit/Debit/ATM Cards or Access Devices

(Republic Act No. 8484 – Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998)

Acts Punished

Using a counterfeit or unauthorized access device to obtain money
Possessing an unauthorized device with intent to defraud
Stealing or revealing card information

Penalty

P100,000 to P1,000,000 fine + 6–20 years imprisonment depending on amount obtained.

7. Computer-Related Fraud / Cybercrime

(Republic Act No. 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Sections 4(a)(1) and 8)

Unauthorized access to bank accounts, online wallets (GCash, Maya, etc.), or corporate payment systems to transfer money is computer-related fraud.

Penalty
One degree higher than the penalty for the underlying fraud/theft/estafa.

Highly relevant in modern cases involving hacked accounts, phishing, or insider bank/IT personnel who siphon funds electronically.

8. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

(Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e) and (g))

For public officers who cause undue injury to the government or private party through manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, or who enter into disadvantageous contracts.

Often filed together with malversation.

9. Qualified Estafa Under Special Laws

Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) – when combined with misappropriation
Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799) – misuse of clients’ securities/money by brokers
General Banking Law of 2000 (RA 8791) – bank officers who misappropriate deposits
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation Charter – misuse of insured deposits

Prescription Periods

Estafa/Theft/Malversation:
– Amount ≤ P22,000 → 10 years
– > P22,000 but ≤ P600,000 → 15 years
– > P600,000 → 20 years
– Reclusion perpetua cases → 20–40 years depending on jurisprudence
Plunder: 20 years
RA 8484 violations: 12 years
Cybercrime: 12 years

Civil Liability

In all the above crimes, the offender is civilly liable to return the money plus interest, moral/exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Civil liability is separate and survives even if the criminal case is dismissed on reasonable doubt (dual liability principle).

Practical Prosecution Reality

In practice, complainants (especially corporations and banks) file multiple charges simultaneously:
Estafa + Qualified Theft + Cybercrime + RA 8484 + Malversation (if public funds involved)
to ensure that at least one charge will stick, given the sometimes thin line between juridical and material possession.

Conclusion

Unauthorized use of money in the Philippines is almost always criminally punishable, with the specific charge depending primarily on:
(1) whether juridical possession was transferred (estafa) or only physical custody (theft);
(2) whether the offender is a public officer;
(3) the amount involved; and
(4) the modality (physical, documentary, or electronic).

There is virtually no scenario where a person can misappropriate entrusted money with impunity under Philippine law. The combination of the Revised Penal Code’s broad estafa provision and numerous special laws ensures that every form of embezzlement or unauthorized use is met with severe criminal sanctions.