Estafa Complaint for Online Scam Philippines

Published 1 day ago• 4 minute read

This article is written for educational purposes. It summarizes laws and procedures in force as of June 2 2025. It is a substitute for individualized advice from a Philippine lawyer.

“Estafa” (swindling or fraud) is punished under . When the fraudulent transaction is carried out (social media marketplace, online banking, mobile wallet, crypto exchange, e-commerce platform, etc.), the offense remains estafa but is deemed under . Section 6 raises the penalty than that provided in Art. 315 and gives cyber-crime courts concurrent jurisdiction.

Law	Key Provisions Relevant to Online Estafa
	Defines estafa modalities, value-based penalties (as amended by , 2017).
§6	Adds one-degree-higher penalty when estafa is committed “through the use of ICT.” Gives the RTC-designated Cybercrime Courts jurisdiction regardless of amount.
	Recognizes legal effect of electronic documents & signatures; applies Rules on Electronic Evidence.
	Lays down authentication & admissibility standards for screenshots, emails, SMS, blockchain logs, etc.
&	Provide administrative remedies (refund/replacement) for defective or undelivered goods bought online.
	May apply where the scam involves unauthorized harvesting of personal data or identity theft.
& (Financial Products & Services Consumer Protection Act)	Require banks/e-money issuers to have rapid complaint handling and to reverse fraudulent transfers when warranted.

To convict, the prosecution must prove :

that have resulted in estafa indictments:

: Conversion (misappropriation) of property received in trust, or issuing unmanned checks (B.P. 22) can also qualify under Art. 315, but this article focuses on online deceit-induced estafa.

Under (which adjusted the 1932 peso values for inflation) :

Because online estafa is “committed through ICT,” : e.g., a basic prisión correccional becomes prisión mayor, etc. Accessory penalties (perpetual special disqualification, etc.) follow the higher degree.

Civil liability equals the amount defrauded legal interest (6 % p.a. from demand) and litigation costs.

Issue	Practical Tip
	Use device’s built-in screen-record + include metadata (EXIF). Execute referencing SHA-256 hash & device IMEI.
	Enable device-level recording or get a court-issued under Rule 7, A.M. 21-06-08-SC on Cybercrime Warrants.
	Print blockchain explorer page with block height; attach expert certification correlating wallet to respondent (KYC, IP logs, or chain-analysis).
	Recordings must be authenticated by the ; if the victim, §1 Rule 21 Wiretap Act exception applies.

Defense	When It Works
	Transaction was bona fide, but non-performance due to force majeure (e.g., courier lost parcel with proof).
	Parties to convert the obligation into a loan; extinguishes criminal liability before the complaint is filed.
	MAY mitigate penalty but does erase criminal liability once deceit is proven.
	IP/phone number leads to a third person; prosecution must link accused to the online account beyond reasonable doubt.

involved in “pig-butchering” romance-investment scams. Victims file estafa; BI and PNP ACG coordinate deportation and filing.
in Cambodia/Myanmar; Philippine victims rely on INTERPOL + DOJ-OST to request extradition.
have 2024 guidelines on digital asset seizure and victim restitution trust funds.

Question	Answer (concise)
	Yes. You may file directly with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
	Preliminary investigation 3-6 months; trial 1-3 years (longer if respondent is at-large).
	Yes. Estafa is not a private crime; however, prosecutors and courts often dismiss upon , so long as the public interest is not gravely offended.
	Juvenile Justice & Welfare Act (RA 9344) applies; diversion programs may replace criminal prosecution.
	For penalty determination, should be filed unless estafa is committed (complex crime).

(A full template is provided in the Appendix; key parts listed here)

16. Conclusion

Estafa remains the Philippines’ because its elements neatly fit common internet fraud schemes. What transforms “ordinary” estafa into cyber-estafa is simply the use of ICT, triggering heavier penalties and wider venue options. Success, however, still hinges on timely evidence preservation, proper venue selection, and coordinated action among victim, counsel, law enforcement, bank/e-wallet, and—where cross-border actors are involved—international partners. Victims who move swiftly and strategically can secure both criminal accountability and financial recovery.