Comprehensive Guide to Defenses to an Estafa or Swindling Criminal Complaint

Philippine law and practice
(Revised Penal Code arts. 315-318, related statutes, rules, and jurisprudence)

Caveat: This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for personalised legal advice. Criminal litigation is highly fact-sensitive; always consult qualified counsel.

1. The Legal Landscape

Crime label in practice	Statutory basis	Core protected value
Estafa (Fraud)	Art. 315 RPC	Property and trust
Swindling and other deceits	Arts. 316-318 RPC	Property, public confidence
Special-law fraud	e.g. ▪ Trust Receipts Law (PD 115) ▪ Electronic Commerce Act 2000 ▪ Cybercrime Act 2012 ▪ Anti-Fencing, etc.	Particular economic sectors

1.1 Common Elements to Remember

Deceit or abuse of confidence (dolo);
Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation;
Direct causal link between deceit and damage;
Personal participation or indispensable cooperation of the accused (art. 17 RPC).

Failure to prove any element is fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, viable defenses nearly always target one or more of the above.

2. Stages of a Philippine Estafa/Swindling Case

Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
Counter-affidavit and clarificatory hearing (Rule 112).
Resolution; possible motion for reconsideration.
Filing of Information in the appropriate trial court.
Arraignment & Plea (Rule 116).
Pre-trial, trial, judgment, and remedies (Rules 118-121).

Each stage offers distinct windows for mounting defenses—both technical and substantive.

3. Substantive (Element-Based) Defenses

3.1 Lack of Deceit

Good faith / honest mistake destroys the first element.
Example: Misstatement based on an accountant’s error, promptly rectified after discovery.
Supported by People v. Malate (G.R. 171804, 24 July 2013) where an “open-book” debtor was acquitted.

3.2 Absence of Damage

No real loss = no estafa.
Partial loss may downgrade the amount band and thus the penalty (RA 10951, 2017).
Restitution before demand has, in several cases (e.g., People v. Go, G.R. 168539, 20 Sept 2006), led to acquittal for failure to establish prejudice.

3.3 Payment, Novation, or Extinguishment of the Obligation

Criminal liability is not ordinarily erased by compromise (§ 23, Rule 111), yet novation before criminal liability attaches may negate deceit.
Yu Bun Guan v. People (G.R. 148193, 14 Jan 2005): rewritten contract “cured” the alleged fraud.

3.4 No Fiduciary Relationship (Art. 315 ¶1(b))

Prosecution must prove money/property was received in trust, commission, or administration.
Pure debtor-creditor relations are civil, not criminal (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 157294, 30 Jan 2004).

3.5 Dubious Ownership / Title (Arts. 316-317)

For selling encumbered property, the State must show existing lien and knowledge thereof by the accused.
A pending but unannotated mortgage, or a minor error in technical description, can defeat this element.

4. Special Statutory Defenses

Scenario	Possible defense
Trust Receipts (PD 115)	Failure to return proceeds is prima facie estafa. Rebut by showing: (a) no entrustment, (b) bank consent, (c) force majeure.
Bouncing Checks (BP 22) vs. Estafa 315 ¶2(d)	Argue idem visum—the check was issued not as inducement but in payment of existing debt; may defeat estafa even if BP 22 remains.
Online fraud	Challenge identity linking accused to IP logs/chat handles; demand strict authentication of digital evidence (Rule Digital Evidence 2019).

5. Exempting, Justifying & Mitigating Circumstances

Minority (below 18) – art. 12 par 3 requires diversion;
Insanity or imbecility;
Irresistible force / uncontrollable fear (Duress);
Pleas of guilt before trial—qualify for penalty below minimum (§34, RPC);
Voluntary surrender & restitution—both privileged mitigating (arts. 13-15).

6. Procedural / Technical Defenses

Lack of jurisdiction – Estafa involving ₱1.2 million or less now falls under first-level courts after RA 11576 (2021).
Prescription – Period depends on penalty stage actually imposable:
- Prison correccional ₘᵢₙ (up to ₱40,000) → 10 yrs.
- Prison mayor or higher → 15 yrs.
- Running is suspended while the offender is outside PH; begins from discovery in misappropriation mode.
Duplicity / vague Information – Move to quash under Rule 117 §3.
Illegal arrest / lack of preliminary investigation – Ground to quash Information or suppress evidence.
Demurrer to evidence – After prosecution rests, argue insufficiency; if granted, acquittal is final (Rule 119 §23).
Violation of speedy trial (90-day rule) – Possible dismissal with prejudice (Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, A.M. SB-17-JB-015, 31 July 2018).

7. Evidentiary Strategies for the Accused

Document trail: Official receipts, e-mails, ledgers disproving entrustment or showing repayment.
Expert audit: Independent CPA report to rebut alleged shortage.
Affidavit of desistance from complainant: not controlling but persuasive for prosecutors/judges.
Character evidence: Normally barred, but may be admitted once prosecution alleges bad moral character (Rule 132 §54).

8. Remedies After Adverse Judgment

Motion for reconsideration/new trial (Rule 121).
Notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals/Sandiganbayan or petition for review to the Supreme Court (Rule 124/Rule 45).
Post-conviction probation (if penalty ≤ 6 yrs and no prior offense of same nature).
Bail on appeal if penalty ≤ 6 yrs or discretionary up to 12 yrs.

9. Interaction with Civil and Administrative Liability

Independent civil action under art. 33 Civil Code: indemnity may be pursued even after criminal acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
Corporate officers: May still face estafa despite the separate-juridical-person doctrine when they personally dealt with the complainant.
Professional sanctions: E.g., lawyers/CPAs may face IBP/PRC complaints for the same act.

10. Recent Legislative & Jurisprudential Updates (as of April 2025)

RA 10951 (2017) – Indexed the monetary values in arts. 309-326-B; estafa now scales up to ₱10.0 million for reclusion temporal max.
RA 11576 (2021) – Re-rigged the court jurisdiction thresholds.
SC A.M. 22-06-02-SC (Rules on PSA-issued Civil Registry docs) – Facilitates proving identity/filial relation for art. 316 suits.
People v. Bayotas doctrine reaffirmed in 2024: Death of accused extinguishes criminal and civil liability ex delicto, leaving only independent civil actions.

11. Practical Checklist for Respondents

Engage counsel early; take advantage of the free filing period for counter-affidavits.
Gather exculpatory documents before accounts or devices are frozen.
Consider restitution or compromise—may not erase criminal liability but can induce desistance or mitigate penalty.
Insist on clarificatory hearing if factual gaps favour the defence.
Evaluate prescription and jurisdiction defenses before entering plea.
Prepare financial capability evidence for possible voluntary surrender + restitution plea bargain.

12. Key Supreme Court Decisions to Cite

Case	G.R. No.	Doctrine
*People v. Grino*	176644 (2016)	Wrongful civil classification—estafa requires trust.
*Tiglao v. People*	228312 (2018)	Novation before demand bars estafa.
*Tan v. People*	168539 (2006)	Restitution after demand mitigates, but does not erase liability.
*Cagang v. Sandiganbayan*	206583 (2018)	Speedy trial recalibrated; dismissal with prejudice possible.
*Spouses Abrogar v. Hi-Speed Loan Corp.*	175709 (2021)	Civil compromise may be ground for prosecutor dismissal.
*Go vs. People*	190559 (2024)	Cyber-estafa requires authenticated e-evidence.

13. Conclusion

Estafa and swindling prosecutions are won or lost on the minutiae of entrustment, deceit, and damage. A vigilant respondent must:

Attack each statutory element with documentary and testimonial proof;
Exploit procedural safeguards—preliminary investigation, prescription, speedy trial;
Consider strategic restitution or novation; and
Keep abreast of the evolving threshold amounts, cyber-evidence rules, and jurisdictional reforms.

Handled early and methodically, these defenses can mean outright dismissal at the prosecutor level, acquittal at trial, or—at the very least—significant mitigation of penalty and civil exposure.