Cyber Estafa Philippines | What Is Cyber Estafa?

Many people have participated in abusive behaviors that fall within the criteria of fraud throughout the previous few decades, long before the development of internet technology. Now, the latter has come into play in the propagation of these fraudulent practices or what we commonly know as online scams, especially in this country, hence, the subject: Cyber Estafa Philippines.

When exposed to financial fraud and its economic effects on family finances, psychological trauma has a negative influence on quality of life. This mind stress may translate to unwarranted actions by the affected individuals. Thus, caution and sobriety should be the right approach. Then, think of legal actions that are available under the circumstances.

What is cyber estafa | Cyber Estafa Philippines

Cyber Estafa may be regarded as a neo-nomenclature and an offshoot name for the traditional estafa. The only difference is that cyber estafa is being done through the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). This may be accomplished through  Social Media, Untrusted but Unsuspecting Websites, Phishing, Hacking, or other similar tactics.

In the Philippines, Estafa, in its purest penal definition, is found under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC], which provides that:

“x x . .

“1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:¹

“(a) altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.²

“(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property 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, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.²

“(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person.²

“2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:²

“(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.²

“(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.²

“(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty.²

“(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) clays from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prime facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.²

“x x . .

“3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:²

“(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.²

“(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.²

“(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers.”²

Thus, if the above acts are done to abuse the confidence of the offended party or to defraud the latter by utilizing the cyber space, the same may be called a cyber estafa, punishable under Republic Act No. 10175,³ in relation to Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code⁴ and under the Revised Penal Code itself.⁵

There are also other modes to scam a person, which the RPC, likewise, defines and penalizes. These are Other Forms of Swindling and Other Deceits.

“Other forms of swindling. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:⁶

“1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same.⁷

“2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded.⁷

“3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the latter or any third person.⁷

“4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.⁷

“5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under the belief that it was in payment of services rendered or labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actually perform such services or labor.⁷

“6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action, without express authority from the court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage, or, in any other manner, encumber the real property or properties with which he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation.⁷

And:

“Art. 318. Other deceits. – 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 or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this Chapter.⁸

“Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of the credulity of the public in any other similar manner, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000).”²

Again, if these acts are committed in cyberspace, the criminal may face penalty under RA 10175 in addition to being prosecuted under the RPC. There is no double jeopardy in this case.

What is the punishment for online scamming in the Philippines?

When online scamming falls within the definition of Estafa or Swindling as contemplated in the RPC, besides the culprit being prosecuted for such, he or she may be liable, as well, under RA 10175. This time, the penalty to be imposed is one degree higher than what is provided under the RPC.

Under Section 6 of RA 10175, it states that:

All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.⁹

Hence, when it comes to the commission of Estafa, whether by abuse of confidence, false pretenses, or fraudulent means, the above provision is applicable. Estafa is a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

Estafa with Abuse of Confidence:

Estafa by means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts:

Other Forms of Swindling and Other Deceits:

Can you file a case against scammer in Philippines?

When the scam amounted to a crime, as defined above, it is undoubtedly ripe for the filing of a criminal action. On the other hand, if the acts only constitute civil fraud, then, one can file a civil case against the purported scammer or violator.

Therefore, we still have to distinguish whether the scam perpetrated by the offender is a crime in itself under the Revised Penal Code or any other law for that matter or the fraud is committed in the performance of a contractual obligation, which is civil in nature.

If the acts fall within the contemplation of Articles 315, 316, 318 (or 317) thereof, then the same shall be considered criminal fraud, which is penalized under the RPC. When, the offender utilizes the Cyber Space or ICT, then, he or she is, likewise, liable for violating RA 10175.

What is Estafa under the Revised Penal Code?

Estafa under the Revised Penal Code may be committed in the following manner:

1] By abuse of Confidence

2] By means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts simultaneous with the commission of the fraud

3] Through other fraudulent means

The specific acts from the above manner of commission are laid down in Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code which are heretofore explained.

In the same vein, there are other modes of perpetrating estafa against a person. There are Other Forms of Swindling and Other Deceits, defined and penalized under Articles 316 and 318 of the the Revised Penal Code.

How much is the bail for estafa in the Philippines?

In determining the amount of bail required for the crime of Estafa, we must first know whether it is bailable or not. If the Estafa committed is by means of false pretenses, the amount involved should not be above P8,800,000. Otherwise, no bail will be recommended as the imposable penalty is Reclusion Perpetua.

Conversely, if Estafa is bailable under the circumstances, the following rule may be applied, as recommended by the Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Department Circular 013, March 8, 2018, which provides that:

“x x . .

“2. Where bail is a matter of right and the imposable penalty is imprisonment and/or fine, the bail shall be computed on the basis of the penalty of imprisonment, a fraction of a year shall be rounded-off to one year, applying the following formulae: to wit:¹⁰

“a. Where the penalty is Prision correccional (regardless of the period) to Reclusion perpetua, or Redusion temporal (regardless of the period) to Reclusion perpetua, bail shall be computed on the maximum period of Reclusion temporal.¹¹

“b. Where the imposable penalty is correccional or afflictive, bail shall be based on the maximum of the penalty, the number of years in its maximum period to be multiplied by P6,000.00.¹¹

However, as regards Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2[d], the DOJ Bailbond Guide of 2018, specifically provides the following, to wit:

“x x . . except for the following:¹¹

“b.3 For Estafa under par 2 (D) up to P 1.2 M, bail shall be based on the maximum of the penalty, the number of years in its maximum period to be multiplied by P2,000.00. Any amount exceeding P 1.2 M, bail shall be based on the maximum of the penalty, the number of years in its maximum period to be multiplied by P6,000.00.¹¹

“x x . .”

It would seem that the base bail amount shall be that one (1) year is equivalent to P6,000. Therefore, if the imposable penalty for the Estafa committed is Reclusion Temporal¹² in its full extent, the bail amount shall be P6,000 x 20 years, which is P120,000.

Is there a minimum amount for estafa?

Estafa is committed regardless of the amount involved as long as valuable property, whether money or another kind, has been misappropriated, converted, or taken through fraudulent means or false pretenses, under the circumstances mentioned above constituting criminal fraud, which illegally deprives another of such property, which he owns or is in his lawful possession. The offender, in this situation, may use online strategies or conventional means of committing Estafa.

Venue of Cybercrime offenses | Where to file?

In cybercrime offenses, the rules on venue has been designated categorically, as follows, to wit:

Section 2.1. Venue of Criminal Actions. -The criminal actions for violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed before the designated cybercrime court of the province or city where the offense or any of its elements is committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place: Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts.¹³

No double jeopardy for the same act of Estafa 

Many will wonder why for the same act of estafa, he or she can be charged for two (2) separate crimes at the very least, without violating the principle of double jeopardy. This is true under Section 7 of RA 10175, which provides that:

Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.¹⁴

Punished both under the RPC and RA 10175

Perforce, the other crime or crimes committed, whether under the Revised Penal Code or any Special Law for that matter, are IN ADDITION to the criminal liability under RA 10175, except libel and child pornography.

Except Libel and Child Pornography

In Disini vs. Secretary of Justice,¹⁵ Child Pornography in RA 10175 merely expands its definition and provides therefore a higher penalty when committed through cyberspace. Thus:

“x x . .

“(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.¹⁶

“It seems that the above merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (ACPA) to cover identical activities in cyberspace. In theory, nothing prevents the government from invoking the ACPA when prosecuting persons who commit child pornography using a computer system. Actually, ACPA’s definition of child pornography already embraces the use of “electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.” Notably, no one has questioned this ACPA provision.¹⁶

“Of course, the law makes the penalty higher by one degree when the crime is committed in cyberspace. But no one can complain since the intensity or duration of penalty is a legislative prerogative and there is rational basis for such higher penalty. The potential for uncontrolled proliferation of a particular piece of child pornography when uploaded in the cyberspace is incalculable.¹⁶

“x x . .”

Similarly, on Libel, the Supreme Court explained that the Libel Provision¹⁷ in RA 10175 merely incorporates the latter to form part of the definition of Libel in the RPC. Hence:

“x x . .

“Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.¹⁶

“Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:¹⁶

“1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and¹⁶

“2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.¹⁶

“Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.¹⁶

“The libel provision of the cybercrime law, on the other hand, merely incorporates to form part of it the provisions of the RPC on libel. x x . .”¹⁶

Concluding, when the High Court discussed Section 7 of RA 10175, it elucidated the following:

“x x . .

“Sec. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.¹⁶

“The Solicitor General points out that Section 7 merely expresses the settled doctrine that a single set of acts may be prosecuted and penalized simultaneously under two laws, a special law and the Revised Penal Code. When two different laws define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one does not bar prosecution of the other although both offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other. With the exception of the crimes of online libel and online child pornography, the Court would rather leave the determination of the correct application of Section 7 to actual cases.¹⁶

“Online libel is different. There should be no question that if the published material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two separate libels. The two offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same offense. Indeed, the OSG itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c)(4) is not a new crime but is one already punished under Article 353. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer system as another means of publication. Charging the offender under both laws would be a blatant violation of the proscription against double jeopardy.¹⁶

“The same is true with child pornography committed online. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the ACPA’s scope so as to include identical activities in cyberspace. As previously discussed, ACPA’s definition of child pornography in fact already covers the use of “electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means.” Thus, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.¹⁶

“x x . .”

Final Thoughts

Internet technology is a gift to mankind. Because of this, border, geographical, and distance barriers, in terms of communication, are now things of the past. Knowledge also proliferated in the cyber space beyond imaginable means, which before, may seem to be insurmountable. We can readily access information, which may be helpful in our research or immediate needs for information.

However, as much as cyber space is the new medium of communication and for day to day research and access to relevant insights, either news or current events, or even historical data, the same has also become a den and bulwark for scammers and those people who have the capability to abuse the technology, thereby, taking advantage of unsuspecting people.

It is in this regard, the cybercrime laws, whether international or local application, have been enacted, as the community of nations had seen the pernicious effect and consequences in utilizing the cyber space for sinister motives.

1. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 85 of RA 10951[↩]
2. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
3. RA 10175[↩]
4. Section 6, Infra.[↩]
5. Section 7, Infra.[↩]
6. Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code[↩]
7. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
8. Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 86 of RA 10951[↩]
9. Section 6, RA 10175[↩]
10. DOJ Bailbond Guide 2018[↩]
11. Id.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
12. The extent of imprisonment for the Reclusion Temporal is 20 years[↩]
13. Section 2.1, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, Rule on Cybercrime Warrants[↩]
14. Section 7, RA 10175[↩]
15. G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014[↩]
16. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
17. Section 4(c)[4][↩]