Short answer. Article 315 groups estafa into three families: abuse of confidence, false pretences made before or during the deal, and other fraudulent means. Each family lists its own specific acts, but all of them require deceit or misappropriation plus actual damage to the person defrauded, and the penalty depends on the amount.
What the law says
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
Revised Penal Code, Article 315 — Swindling (Estafa). Read the full provision →
What the law says
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.
Revised Penal Code, Article 315 — Swindling (Estafa). Read the full provision →
First family: unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
These are the cases where you handed the property over voluntarily and it was never returned. The core provision punishes a person 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 — or by simply denying having received it. Two other acts sit alongside it: altering the substance, quantity or quality of something the offender was obliged to deliver, and taking undue advantage of a signature in blank by writing a document above it. The common thread is a pre-existing duty to return or deliver, then a breach of it.
Second family: false pretences and fraudulent acts
Here the deceit comes before or at the same time as the transaction — it is what persuaded you to part with your money. The lead provision covers acting 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. The same paragraph also reaches altering the quality, fineness or weight of something in one's art or business, and pretending to have bribed a government employee. Timing is decisive: if the false statement came after you already paid, the transaction is usually an unpaid debt rather than this form of estafa, and a civil suit is the proper route.
Bouncing cheques, and the notice rule
Within the same family sits the cheque provision: postdating a cheque, or issuing one in payment of an obligation when the drawer had no funds or insufficient funds. The article builds in a specific mechanism — failure to deposit the amount needed to cover the cheque within three days from receipt of notice of dishonour from the bank, payee or holder is prima facie evidence of deceit. That makes the written notice of dishonour and proof of its receipt the most important documents in the file. This estafa form also carries its own separate, heavier penalty scale, distinct from the general table at the head of the article.
Third family, amounts, and what estafa is not
The last group covers inducing another by deceit to sign a document, using a fraudulent practice to win at a gambling game, and removing, concealing or destroying court records, office files or papers. Across all three families the penalty is scaled to the amount defrauded, and those peso brackets are the ones set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised property values and fines throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reproductions still print the 1930 figures — 12,000 and 22,000 pesos for theft and estafa — where the current thresholds run into the millions, so always check which version a source is giving you. Estafa is also not simple non-payment: a borrower who cannot pay commits no crime. Keep receipts, the trust or agency document, and the notice of dishonour, and consult a lawyer promptly.