Can You File Theft or Estafa Against a Family Member?

Article 332 reads:

In Carungcong v. People (2010), the Supreme Court called this an "absolutory cause": it limits the offender's responsibility to civil liability and frees him from criminal liability because of his relationship to the offended party. The Court said the spirit of the article "is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal."

Only three: theft (Article 308), swindling or estafa (Article 315 and the related articles), and malicious mischief (Article 327). The article names no other crime.

In Carungcong, the Court stressed that the coverage "is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein" and applies only to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply when one of them is complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification. In that case, a man whose wife had died was charged in connection with his mother-in-law's property. Because the charge was the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, not simple estafa, he could not use Article 332, and the case was sent back to the trial court for trial.

Not for this article. In Carungcong, the son-in-law argued that his relationship with his mother-in-law ended when his wife died. The Supreme Court held that, for Article 332(1), "the relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity."

No. The article itself says "only civil liability" results, so civil liability stays. This matches the general rule in Article 100 that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable: here the criminal part is removed, but the duty to return or pay remains.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Paolo, 24, takes his mother's savings from her cabinet and spends them. He is her descendant, and the act is simple theft. Under Article 332, no criminal liability results, but he remains civilly liable to return the money.

Ditas and her married sister live in separate houses. Ditas borrows her sister's jewelry, pawns it and keeps the money. Brothers and sisters are covered only "if living together", so Article 332 may not help Ditas. Whether her acts are estafa is decided under the estafa articles.

Ben, a widower, sells his late wife's mother's land using a deed she supposedly signed, which turns out to be falsified. The in-law relationship survives under Carungcong, but a charge of estafa through falsification is a complex crime that Article 332 does not cover.

Rico helps his friend take the friend's father's motorcycle and sell it. The friend may be exempt from criminal liability under Article 332, but Rico is a stranger, so the exemption does not apply to him.

A helper or employee is not a relative, so Article 332 does not apply. Theft committed with grave abuse of confidence or by a domestic servant is covered by the page on qualified theft.

See also the comparison theft vs estafa and the topic page on crimes against property.

Talk to a lawyer if a relative took money or property from you, if you are a relative accused of theft or estafa, or if the case also involves forged or falsified documents. Whether the relationship is covered, whether the parties live together and whether the charge is a simple or complex crime decide whether Article 332 applies. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines for the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and other options.