I. Introduction
Estafa, the Spanish-derived term for swindling or fraud, is one of the most frequently prosecuted crimes against property in the Philippines. Governed primarily by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), it punishes deceit that causes damage to another. Article 318, titled “Other Deceits,” serves as the residual or catch-all provision for fraudulent acts that do not fall under the specific modes of estafa or the other swindling offenses in Chapter Six of Title Ten of the RPC.
Both crimes are mala in se, requiring criminal intent (doloand proof of deceit or abuse of confidence that results in prejudice or damage to the offended party. They are public crimes, meaning the State prosecutes them even without a private complaint, although in practice almost all cases originate from a complaint-affidavit filed by the private complainant.
II. Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 315, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), enumerates three principal modes of committing estafa:
1. Estafa with Abuse of Confidence (Paragraph 1)
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value that the offender is obliged to deliver;
(b) By misappropriating, converting, or denying receipt of money, goods, or other personal property received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
(c) By executing a fictitious contract or taking undue advantage of signature in blank.
The most common form is paragraph (b)—estafa through misappropriation or conversion. Juridical possession of the thing by the offender is essential. The offender must receive the property under a juridical relation that imposes upon him the duty to return the very same thing or its equivalent (e.g., agent, administrator, depositary, bailee, trustee, broker, lawyer holding client funds, corporate officer).
Key Supreme Court rulings:
- There must be prior demand or proof that demand is unnecessary (e.g., when the offender has absconded or disposed of the property).
- Good faith or mere failure to pay a debt does not constitute estafa; there must be positive acts of misappropriation or conversion.
- Novation of a contract (civil obligation into a different obligation) extinguishes criminal liability if done before the criminal case is filed.
2. Estafa by Means of Deceit (Paragraph 2)
(a) Using fictitious name, falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits;
(b) Altering quality, fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to art or business;
(c) Pretending to have bribed a public officer;
(d) Postdating or issuing a check in payment of a simultaneous obligation without sufficient funds or credit, with deceit and damage.
Paragraph 2(d)—estafa through bouncing checks—is the most litigated form. The elements are:
- Postdating or issuance of a check;
- The check is in payment of an obligation contracted at or before the issuance of the check;
- Lack of sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank at presentment;
- Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation to the payee.
Important distinctions from Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:
- Estafa requires deceit anterior to or simultaneous with the issuance of the check and actual damage.
- BP 22 is malum prohibitum; mere issuance of an unfunded check with knowledge of insufficiency is sufficient; damage is not required.
- Both offenses can be committed by the same act, giving rise to two separate criminal liabilities (People v. Grospe, G.R. Nos. 74053-54, January 20, 1988; Nierras v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. 59568, October 11, 1990, as reaffirmed in subsequent cases).
3. Estafa through False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts (Paragraph 3, introduced by PD 1689)
Issuing an unfunded check in payment of a simultaneous obligation with intent to defraud in connection with securities transactions is now largely obsolete due to the Securities Regulation Code and the General Banking Law.
Penalties for Estafa (as amended by RA 10951)
The penalty is now graduated strictly according to the amount of damage:
| Amount of fraud | Penalty |
|---|---|
| ≤ P40,000 | Arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods (2 months & 1 day to 6 months); if amount does not exceed P400, fine of not less than the damage but not more than three times the damage |
P40,000 but ≤ P1,200,000 | Prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period (4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 8 years) + 1 year for each additional P2,000,000 (maximum addition: 20 years) P1,200,000 but ≤ P4,400,000 | Prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (10 years, 1 day to 14 years) P4,400,000 but ≤ P8,800,000 | Reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods (14 years, 8 months, 1 day to 20 years) P8,800,000 | Reclusion perpetua
The incremental penalty rule (1 year for each additional P2,000,000) has a ceiling of 20 years additional.
III. Other Deceits under Article 318, RPC
Article 318 states:
“The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles.”
This is the residual provision for frauds that do not fit Articles 315, 316, 316 or 317.
Common examples upheld by the Supreme Court:
- False representation in a public document that is not perjury or falsification (e.g., falsely declaring a person as one's spouse to obtain benefits).
- Fraudulent manipulation of a gambling game or device.
- Selling fake or counterfeit tickets, lottery numbers, or tokens.
- Simulated sales or contracts intended to defraud third persons (not falling under Art. 316).
Article 318 is used when the deceit is simple and does not involve the specific modalities of estafa, such as abuse of confidence or issuance of bouncing checks.
Penalty: Arresto mayor (1 month 1 day to 6 months) + fine of 1× to 2× the damage.
Because the maximum imposable penalty does not exceed 6 months, the crime is classified as a light felony and is covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure in Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts.
IV. Distinctions Between Estafa and Other Crimes
Estafa vs. Theft: In theft, possession is material; in estafa through misappropriation, possession is juridical.
Estafa vs. BP 22: As discussed above.
Estafa vs. Article 316 (Other Forms of Swindling): Art. 318 is used when the deceit does not constitute any of the specific swindling acts in Arts. 315–317.
V. Civil Liability Ex Delicto
In both estafa and other deceits, the offender is civilly liable for the amount of damage caused plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint or information. The civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless expressly waived or reserved.
VI. Prescription
Estafa prescribes in:
- 20 years if the maximum penalty is reclusion perpetua;
- 15 years if the maximum is reclusion temporal or higher correctional penalty;
- 10 years for other estafa cases (Act No. 3326, as amended).
Article 318 (light felony) prescribes in 2 months.
VII. Procedure and Issuance of Warrants of Arrest
Filing of Complaint
- Private complainant files a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Prosecutor (I.S. No.).
- Prosecutor conducts preliminary investigation.
- If probable cause is found, Information is filed in court.
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Issuance of Warrant (Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC)
Upon filing of the Information:
- The judge personally evaluates the prosecutor's resolution and supporting evidence within 10 days.
- If probable cause is found, the judge shall issue a warrant of arrest unless:
(i) the accused is already under detention; or
(ii) the case is subject to the Rule on Summary Procedure and the judge opts to issue summons instead (common in Article 318 cases). - In practice, for estafa cases (where penalties usually exceed 6 years), warrants of arrest are almost always issued.
- The judge may, in his discretion, allow the accused to voluntarily surrender and post bail before warrant issuance, especially if the accused is known and has no history of absconding (circulars from the Office of the Court Administrator encourage this to decongest jails).
Posting of Bail Lifts the Warrant
Estafa is bailable as a matter of right before conviction when the penalty imposable does not exceed 6 years (Sec. 4, Rule 114). When it exceeds 6 years but evidence of guilt is not strong, bail is discretionary. In high-amount estafa cases (reclusion perpetua possible), bail is discretionary even before conviction.Hold-Departure Orders and Immigration Lookout Bulletins
Courts routinely issue HDOs in estafa cases upon motion of the prosecution or complainant to prevent flight.
VIII. Conclusion
Estafa under Article 315 remains the primary criminal tool against fraud involving deceit or abuse of confidence, while Article 318 serves as a catch-all for simpler fraudulent acts. The graduated penalties introduced by RA 10951 have made punishment more proportionate to the amount defrauded, with reclusion perpetua now possible in very large-scale estafa. Warrants of arrest are issued as a matter of course in estafa cases, reflecting the seriousness with which Philippine courts treat economic sabotage through fraud. Victims are well-advised to immediately file the appropriate criminal action with complete documentation, as delay can lead to prescription or difficulty in locating the offender.