the rule of thumb in giving advise is to confine and limit on the facts given... do not go beyond it, speculate or make unwarranted conjecture or conclusion coz it might lead to a different or improper remedy... simple logic will do but do not add additional facts...

the same rule applies in giving legal advise...parang exam sa law school, pag ang sagot ay based don sa hypothesis or facts na wala sa tanong and simply supplanted or presumed by the examinee but did not qualify or explain how he arrived in such conclusion, mas malamang he will not get the best score for that manner of answering.... no one knows what is in someone's mind...

anyways, to answer your queries, please consider this...

pag hindi na nagpakita after she agreed to pay 3.8k, the only logical conclusion is that she no longer want to make true of her promise or the aggrieved did not agree to it.. in short, its a failed settlement, plain and simple...file the case or cases i mentioned...

elaborated scenario naman tayo...

nagkaroon ng agreement, perfected and both parties agreed to it... then hindi nagpakita yung party and you want to file a case other than RIR or damage suit, kailangan mo i prove na yung pag enter niya sa agreement was a mere ploy or craft just to evade her responsibilities.. in short, deceit or misrepresentation was employed which made you decide to let her go and it turned out that she has no intention to fulfill it, dito papasok yung question mo na paano kung mali na yung name or address niya and it was really her intention to mislead you, kailangan mo mapapasok sa deceit or misrepresentation yung ginawa niya... file estafa case yun nga lang medyo mahirapan ka to prosecute her para ma convict, kasi mahirap i prove ang deceit without tangible evidence since sa criminal case ay "proof beyond reasonable doubt" ang inoobserve...

kung lagpas na ng 60 days, wala ka na option but to file civil case... light felonies prescribe in 60 days, so more on collection nalang ng damage ang pwede gawin...

BTW in hit and run cases, presence of danger or imminent fear of life or limb is a valid defense... in short, to fall as a hit and run, there must be no supervening event that transpired, dapat after the incident tumakbo na yung culprit but not because me danger sa kanya... in appreciating that defense, dapat sa authorities siya tumakbo at hindi kung saan saan lang...

sa case ni TS, nagkaroon pa sila ng bargaining at nakarating pa sila bahay na magkasama.... malabo na mangyari yung hit and run scenario...