That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.

(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath.
(c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal
Material matter is the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstances which tends to
prove the fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative
to the subject of the inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testified.
False testimony is given in the course of a judicial proceeding and contemplates an actual trial where
judgement of conviction or acquittal is rendered and not merely a preliminary investigation. On the other
hand, perjury is any willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood on a material matter under oath and not given
in judicial proceedings. It may be committed even during a preliminary investigation as well as in the
making of a false affidavit under oath on a material matter when required by law.

Xxx AND xxx
THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANTS-AFFIANTS xxx and xxx, both of legal age and residing
at xxx St., xxx Subdivision, xxx, xxx, xxx City, under oath, respectfully state:

RESPONDENT. – The Respondent in this criminal complaint is xxx, of legal age, married, Filipino, and
resident of Block xxx, Lot xxx, xxx St., xxx Xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, where summons/subpoenas may be
served by this Honorable Office for purposes of preliminary

2. CRIME CHARGED. – The herein Complainants hereby charge the abovenamed Respondent for the
crime of Perjury under Art. 183, Rev. Penal Code, the ultimate facts of which are discussed
3. ULTIMATE FACTS. – On 14 December 2015, the Respondent executed a Sworn Statement before
Asst. City Pros. xxx of the Office of the City Prosecutor of xxx. A copy of the said sworn statement,
together with the related documents thereto (e.g., Police Referral, dated 14 December 2015; Barangay

the truth of the matter being that the Estafa complaint filed by the Respondent (as Complainant therein) in the aforementioned case against the herein Complainant XXX (as Respondent therein) was a perjurious. T . 3. kaya sinimulan po namin ito sa akin po siya kumukuha ng pera at siya ang nagpapalabas. dated 14 December 2015) are attached hereto asAnnex “A”. entitled “xxx vs.000.. and solely for the selfish financial gain and benefit of the Respondent SAMPAMNG and his anonymous Financier.without any legal and contractual basis therefor.” 3. malicious. he perjuriously alleged the following statements of material facts under oath: “x x x.Kasunduan. with sub-markings. and 7 of the said Sworn Statement of the Respondent. and (b) To earn unjust. herein Complainant xxx). dated 7 October 2015.Dahil po sa hindi pag bayad sa akin ng perang hiniram nya na nagkakahalagangPhP326. 6. has caused him to .1. dated 12 November 2015. S .00. O4.2.e. Final Demand Letter. the Respondent charged the herein Complainant XXX for the alleged crime of Estafa. and The act of the Respondent XXX of initiating the aforementioned Estafa case against the herein Complainant XXX.00 at noong kinausap ko na po siya ay puro kanalang PANGAKO NG PANGAKO (sic). 4. felonious. unfounded and unjust FABRICATION intended by the Respondent XXX: (a) To collect a loan that the herein Complainants had already paidin full. xxx”. without any legal and factual basis.3. saan. In Question and Answer Nos. 3.000. The truth of the matter is that: The Complainant XXX does not owe any amount whatsoever to the Respondent XXX . The aforecited statements of the Respondent xxx under oath were false and perjurious. O5. noong unang buwan at maganda pa ang negosyo namin at bumabalik and puhunan ngunit dumaan na ang ilang buwan kumukuha siya ng pera sa akin ngunit hindi na ito bumabalik kasama na ang tubo at umabot na poi to ng halagang PhP326. It was docketed as xxx. City Prosecutor xxx. huge and usuri0us interests and/or penalties/surcharges on the said fully paid loan.” X x x. In the said sworn statement. T – Bakit mo e-reklamo (sic) yung taong iyong nabanggit? (i. and Special Power of Attorney.Kailan. baseless. at anong oras naganap ang sinasabi mong pangyayari? S - Ganito po yun noong petsang nabanggit at nagkasundo po kami ni xxx na magnenegosyo kung saan magpapahiram po kami sa kasamahan niyang xxx (sic) at may tubo poi to. It is undergoing preliminary investigation before Asst.

sleepless nights.00 principal loan for the period of ten (10) days. 20 September 2014 to 30 September 2014). usurious. Please note that the said P6. when the herein Complainant XXX was ready to pay in full his said P15. broken down as follows: (a) P15. the Complainant XXX was in need of P15. unconscionable.00.5. the Complainants paid. 000. contract of loan. The P6. 3. It was a verbal loan transaction.4. official receipt. which was based solely on the Barangay “Kasunduan”. via a deposit to the bank account of the Respondent. 000. extreme anxieties. unconscionable and immoral forty percent (40%) interest rate for the very short period of ten (10) days (i. 000. and (b) P6.. penalties. 000. 000. The Respondent said he could lend the herein Complainant XXX the amount the latter needed.6. The Respondent said he had enough personal savings to accommodate the urgent need of the Complainant XXX. 000.00 as principal loan. the Respondent demanded an additional amount of P6. On 30 September 2014.00 loan. On 20 September 2014 or thereabout. and (c) Special Power of Attorney (SPA).000. too. executed by the Respondent in favor of XXX (his daughter) and XXX (his sister) on the pretext that he would be going abroad soon.00 that took place on 20 September 2014 was not evidenced by any promissory note. or similar financial or contractual document. He sought the assistance of the Respondent. contract of loan.7. 000. iniquitous. and immoral. dated 14 December 2015.e. and besmirched reputation on the part of the herein Complainants. Nonetheless. official receipt. the Complainants paid the Respondent on30 September 2014 the total amount of P21.00 as interest. 000. (b) Final Demand Letter. The abovementioned verbal loan transaction involving a principal amount of P15. voucher. The Respondent alleged that the said amount was being required by his anonymous Financier. or surcharges of the said verbal loan. voucher. 000. 3.00 as interest on the P15. 000.00 was the Complainant’s own personal savings. to the Respondent the principal loan of P15. Please note. 000.00 and the interest of P6.00 for the tuition fees of his child enrolled at the xxx. The herein Complainant XXX was surprised by such a statement of the Respondent because the latter had earlier said that the amount of P15. The CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT FACTS AND EVENTS in support of this Complaint for Perjury as discussed hereinbelow.suffer mental anguish. What were attached to the Respondent’s Estafa Complainant were only the following documents: (a) Barangay “Kasunduan” dated 7 October 2015 between the Complainant and the Respondent. 3. 000.00 interest on the P15. dated 12 November 2015.8.00 principal loan for a very short period of ten (10) days was usurious.00 interest amounted to an incredible. The Respondent did not mention that he would source the amount from an outside Financier. 3. unacceptable.00 that the Respondent and his anonymous Financier were demanding. 000. to avoid unnecessary interpersonal problems with the Respondent. The Complainants started to suspect the honesty of the Complainant. As earlier stated. iniquitous. 3. or similar financial or contractual document to prove his claim against the herein Complainants. There was no oral or written stipulation whatsoever as to the interest. . that the Respondentdid not attach to his Estafa Complaint any promissory note.

statement of account. Two (2) weeks after 30 September 2014 (the date when the herein Complainants paid to the Respondent the said amount of P21. 000. 3. iniquitous. or any written request or instruction from his anonymous Financier to prove the allegation of the Respondent that his anonymous Financier was indeed demanding P42. unconscionable. This was clearly usurious. iniquitous. 000. 3. address and contact details of the anonymous Financier. The Respondent did not present to the herein Complainants at that time and up to the present time any credible documentary proof identifying his anonymous Financier. a total of P42.00) -.00earlier made by the Respondent. demanded the name. unacceptable.00. The Complainants at that time demanded that the Respondent the name. Neither did the Respondent present to the herein Complainants at that time and up to the present time any documentary proof of demand/collection.The Complainants rejected such an unfair. billing..00 as of 15 October 2014 or thereabout. But the Respondent refused and continues to refuse to this very day to give to the herein Complainants the name. 000. 3. After the said telephone call of the Respondent to the herein Complainant XXX made on 15 October 2014 or thereabout. doubting the sincerity and truthfulness of the allegation of the Respondent. 000.-. usurious. The herein Complainants. . The Respondent alleged that he hadmortgaged his house to his anonymous Financier to pay for the said unpaid interest of the herein Complainant XXX. 000.the Respondent called up the Complainant alleging: (a) That his anonymous Financier (whom the Complainant did not identify) had allegedly rejected the payment of P21.00 at that time. Please note that the Respondent’s demand for P42.000. would amount to a huge and unjust interest of thirty-five percent (35%) for very short period of twenty-five (25) days (i. letter.00 made on 20 September 2014 had already escalated to P100. immoral.3. in relation to the original verbal loan of P15.00 contracted by the herein Complainant XXX on 20 September 2014. address and contact details of the anonymous Financier so that the herein Complainants could personally discuss and explain his position to the Financier. unjust.10. 20 September 2014 to 15 October 2014).00.000. Then sometime in December 2014 or thereabout the Respondent again called up the herein Complainant XXX alleging that the past-due interest of the latter on the original principal loan of P15.00 as of the date of his call in December 2014 . the Respondent kept quiet for two (2) months.9. 000. unconscionable. that is.00 interest as of that time (December 2014). 000.00. They also demanded copies of any documentary proof justifying the claim of P100. address and contact details of the Financier so that the herein Complainants could forthwith talk and discuss the issue with the said Financier. and unacceptable demand for P42. 000. But the Respondent failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to this very day to provide the herein Complainants such information and documentary proof/s.000.12. considering that no interest was formally agreed upon or stipulated when the verbal loan for P15.or sometime in the middle of October 2014. 000. immoral.11.e. and (b) That the unidentified Financier of the Respondent was allegedly demanding doublethe said amount of P21. and unjustified.00 was consummated between the Complainant XXX and the Respondent on 20 September 2014.

On 7 October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent again called up the herein Complainant XXX. The herein Complainant XXX. PAG HINDI KA SUMAMA.” 3. The herein Complainant XXX signed the Kasunduan UNDER DURESS. IKAW. and that the Respondent wished to talk with the herein Complainant XXX for a while about his loan. HINDI MO BA AKO KILALA? xxx AKO NG ASSOCIATION NG XXX XXX. although he could understand and speak some simple conversational English and Tagalog words. XXX. The contents and the legal effects of the said document were not explained and interpreted to the herein Complainant XXX by Barangay Deputy XXX or any Barangay Kagawad or by the Barangay Secretary or by any Lupon Officer or Member. false. All he . He was MISLED by Barangay Deputy XXX to sign it.13. and legal effects because. and the Respondent to sign a page of the Barangay logbook. Despite the fact that there was no pending formal Barangay complaint against the herein Complainant XXX and despite the fact that there was no official Barangay summons issued to him at that time. without the aid of an interpreter. He did not understand its contents. Xxx Xxx City right that very moment.15. by the name of “Deputy xxx ”. and the Respondent that the document was only aharmless record or minutes of the Barangay meeting. The herein Complainant XXX was misled by Barangay Deputy XXX. The herein Complainant XXX agreed to meet with the Respondent outside his home. 3. consequences. He was not assisted by an Interpreter or by a lawyer of his choice. When the herein Complainant XXX the van of the Respondent. as a Japanese national. untrue. and (b) That the claim of the Respondent for P366.16. and fabricated. SUMAMA KA SA AKIN SA BARANGAY.3. unfounded. he understood the context of the threatening words of XXX based on his facial expressions and hand movements and based on the harassing presence of the Respondent. was forced by Barangay Deputy XXX.00 was baseless. inside his van. being a xxx national. He was threatened/intimidated by XXX and the Respondent to sign it. the Respondent asked the herein Complainant XXX to go inside his van for a more private discussion. who showed the Respondent a government ID. When they met. he was surprised to see a man who identified himself as XXX XXX. XXX. (a) That he had not received any formal Barangay complaint or formal Barangay summons.14. XXX threatened the Respondent with the following words: “HOY. Although the herein Complainant XXX. At the Barangay Hall. he has no mastery of English and Tagalog. has no perfect mastery of the Tagalog language.17. which turned out later to be a “KASUNDUAN”. he was forced by XXX and the Respondent to go with them to the Barangay Hall of Barangay Xxx 5. 3. saying that the former was at that time waiting inside Xxx Xxx I Subdivision near the home of the herein Complainants. LOKO KA HA! MAY UTANG KA PALA NANG GANITO KALAKI KAY XXX. 000. PAPALABASIN KO KAYO SA XXX AT HINDI NA KAYO PWEDE TUMIRA DITO. 3. 3.18. the herein Complainant XXX told the Barangay officer.

unconscionable and iniquitous interests of the herein Complainant XXX.21. 000. in the total amount of P366. 3. if any and other covenants related to the agreed loan. or a BILL executed or signed by the Lender and the Borrower: To prove the financial claim of the Respondent and his anonymous Financier. the stipulated interest rate. The Respondent repeated his demand to be paid.19.20. That his wife would soon return from abroad. The herein Complainants insisted that they had already settled in full his original verbal loan of P15. the stimulated penalties and surcharges. The Complainants were thus constrained to tell the Respondent that it would be better for him to file a court case to prove his claim so that the truth would come out. Ignoring the foregoing demand of the herein Complainants. After a few days from 7 October 2015. the Respondent made a series of calls to the herein Complainant XXX. a VOUCHER.00. the Respondent insisted that the herein Complainants pay the total amount he was claiming and that the same be paid by them at the home of XXX. 3. XXX and the Respondent. 000. the Respondent has not presented any credible document.knew was that the said document was a harmless minutes of meeting. 000.00 with P6. The Kasunduan was an entrapment document used by the Respondent to document a verbal loan agreement and to evade the degree of evidence required by the Statutes of Frauds of the Civil Code. a PROMISSORY NOTE. as represented to him by Barangay Deputy XXX. vice president of the homeowners association of Xxx Xxx Subdivision (who was not a party to the oral loan transaction). a CONTRACT OF LOAN.22. That the Respondent would soon leave for abroad. They demanded that the Respondent show proofs of the alleged liability of the herein Complainant XXX and the computations of the alleged past-due interests. allegedly including his van) to his anonymous Financier to secure the alleged obligation of the herein Complainant XXX. . Aside from the suspicious Kasunduan. containing the amount of the principal loan. Sometime in the latter part of October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent visited the home of the herein Complainants. 3. 3. pestering the latter to pay his alleged obligation. but not necessarily limited to. either in the form of a voucher or an official receipt or a statement of account or a billing or a promissory note or a contract of loan or any other credible document. a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT.00 interest. To prove the veracity of the computation/s of the usurious. the Respondent would capitalize on the said KASUNDUAN as the sole basis of his FINAL DEMAND LETTER to prove the alleged financial liability of the Complainant XXX. accompanied by an unidentified man whose appearance appeared to be suspicious. such as. in his criminal complaint for Estafa against the herein Complainant XXX. and That it would be a great problem on his part if his wife would discover that he had mortgaged his house (and. Later. this time. and To prove compliance by the Respondent and his anonymous Financier with the mandatory provisions of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT in re: the formal issuance by the Lender to the Borrower of a FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. The Respondent alleged and stated: That the payment should be made by the herein Complainant XXX at the home of XXX. this time.

27. the alleged financial obligation of the herein Complainant XXX. hoping that such an amount would finally end the baseless claim and collection pestering/harassment of the Respondent. dated 7 October 2015. In that confrontation. Please note that in the Barangay KASUNDUAN. .the herein Complainants paid the Respondent an additional amount of P47. the said claim of the Respondent without first giving the herein Complainants an opportunity to be heard. But it was not so. and that he should not have believed outright. without the assistance of the herein Complainant XXX and based solely on the personal request of the Respondent -. That as the vice president of the homeowners association vested with the legal duty to serve the common good of the homeowners/tenants of the subdivision.24.00. On 26 November 2015.3. according to the Respondent. It is the hope and prayer of the herein Complainants that this Honorable Office would resist the malicious move of the Complainant to use. 000. It contradicts the Final Demand Letter. During the said confrontation. unfair. and unjust vexation.00 -.e. as his constituents in the subdivision) against the baseless and unfounded claim of the Respondent. To put an end to abusive and pestering collection behavior of the Respondent -. the Spouses XXX AND XXX. On 26 November 2015 the herein Complainant confronted XXX at his home in Xxx Xxx Subdivision. The Respondent continues to insist on his claim of P366. dated 12 November 2015.00 by filing a harassment case for Estafa. which claimed the total amount of P326.23.25.00. 000.and without the prior filing by the Respondent of a formal Barangay complaint and without the prior issuance by the Barangay Secretary of a formal Barangay summons to the Complainant -.was an unjust. mislead. was P366. 2015. without admitting any liability on the part of the herein Complainants and without admitting the validity of the claim of the Respondent in the amount of P366. 000. and exploit it as his pro bono personal COLLECTION AGENCY. as her mediators/witnesses. 3. That the act of XXX of coercively bringing the herein Complainant XXX to the Barangay Hall on 7 October 2015. 000. She brought along with her.or a huge and unexplained difference of P40. with the hope that XXX would be more discerning as a community leader in the future. 3. The herein affiant accepted his apology. XXX should have taken steps to protect the herein Complainants as residents/tenants of the subdivision (i. That at the very least XXX should have first consulted and heard the side of the herein Complainants when the Respondent first sought his assistance to collect from the herein Complainant XXX. the Respondent was mysteriously present inside the home of XXX.26. and illegal act of harassment. 3.and solely to buy peace. the herein Complainant XXX filed a complaint with Barangay Xxx against the Complainant and XXX. 3. intimidation. The herein Complainants believes that the Complainant is using the Criminal Justice System as his own coercive COLLECTION AGENCY. of the Respondent.. hook line and sinker.00 . During the Barangay conciliation XXX apologized to her for his behavior. 000. 000. herein Complainant XXX told XXX: That the herein Complainants have been residents/tenants of the subdivision for seven (7) years. via a deposit to the bank account of the Respondent. Xxx was a past president of the homeowners association of the subdivision.00 on October 15.

the Respondent claims P326.000. (It was originally addressed to the oldhome address of the herein Complainants in the same subdivision). dated 14 December 2015. and/or DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS were presented by the Respondent to prove his claim. Xxx Xxx City. dated 14 December 2015.Please note the internal contradictions and inadequacies among the documents submitted by the Respondent in the Estafa case. 7 October 2015. 4. AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED CLAIM: (a) In his Sworn Statement.00. dated 12 November 2015. (b) In the Barangay Kasunduan. SPA). he alleged that his claim was based on alleged “Ticket Purchase”. dated 14 December 2015. The herein Complainants was constrained to retain the legal services of the LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES. (Q and A No.000.00. and to file the necessary criminal and/or civil countercharges against the Respondent. given before the Xxx City Police Station. 1. (d) In the Special Power of Attorney (SPA). the Subpoena of this Honorable Office in re: the Estafa case filed by the Respondent was delivered by the process server of this Honorable Office at the new home address of the Respondent at Xxx Xxx Subdivision.000. CONTRACTS OF LOAN. PROMISSORY NOTES. CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT. he claims P326. OFFICIAL RECEIPTS. (b) In his Special Power of Attorney (SPA). . On January 18. dated 14 December 2015. to disprove the false. (a) In his Sworn Statement. he claims P366.000. 2016 at 7:00 PM. he claims P326. the Respondent alleged that he and the Respondentagreed to go into the business of money lending. BILLS. AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED LOAN OF THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT XXX. baseless. given before the Xxx Xxx City Police Station. . (Par.28. 6). in the interest of truth and justice. to defend their legal and constitutional rights. unfounded. and malicious claim of the Complainant. STATEMENTS OF ACCOUINTS.00. fabricated.00.3. (e) Please note that in all of the foregoing allegations no VOUCHERS. (c) In the Final Demand Letter.

dated 14 December 2015. Note: Due to lack of material time. dated 14 December 2015. (b) Annex “C” and “C-1” – Barangay Blotter.g. 6 of his Sworn Statement. LETTERS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS.g. without admitting any liability on the part of the herein Complainant XXX and without admitting the validity of the claim of the Respondent. e. (d) Please note. UNDERTAKINGS.oo demanded by the Respondent. broken down as follows: The agreed principal loan of P15. 1 of his SPA.00. The herein Complainants will attempt this week to secure from the Bank a formal Certification of its Branch Manager to corroborate the foregoing fact. STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT. 5. At any rate. The herein Complainants hereby submit to this Honorable Office the following additional documents to support their instant complaint for Perjury: (a) Annex “B” – xxx Cash Deposit Slip #001281045029. 000. ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP. the herein Complainants cannot submit as an annex of this pleading at this time a copy of the xxx Cash Deposit Slip. re: the Barangay complaint of the herein Complainant XXX against the unjust and coercive acts of harassment of the Respondent and XXX XXX. and the like.00. DEED. The said Cash Deposit Slip was misplaced or thrown away by the housemaid of the herein Complainants. LETTERS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. e. UNDERTAKING. 000. referred to in Par.. 000.and the like. dated 30 September 2014. that the Respondent has not presented any proof of the alleged “Ticket Purchase”of the herein Complainant XXX. and The unstipulated interest of P6. VOUCHERS. when their family recently moved to their new home addressin the same prove the full payment by the Complainants of their oral loan dated 20 September 2014. BILLS. 000. AGREEMENT/CONTRACT. that he indeed RECEIVED from the Respondent the said amount of P47. The housemaid mistakenly thought that those papers were trash and unnecessary. dated 26 November 2015. together with other personal papers.. please note that the Complaint admits in Q and A No. PLANE TICKETS. DEEDS.000. too. . MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.(c) Please note that the Respondent has not presented any proof of his alleged partnership agreement or business agreement with the herein Complainant XXX to establish a money lending business referred to in Q and A No. in the amount of P21.00 to prove that the herein Complainants had deposited the said amount to the bank account of the Respondent to buy peace. 7 of his Sworn Statement. dated 14 December 2015.00 paid to the bank account of the Respondent . dated 15 October 2015. The herein Complainants reserve the right to present the said bank certification as an annex to their future Reply-Affidavit. in the amount of P47. AFFIDAVIT.

Penal Code and/or such other penal laws as may be justified/warranted by the facts of this case. Any person who. Xxx Xxx City. ARTICLE 183 of the Revised Penal Code provides: “Article 183. it is respectfully prayed that the Respondent be indicted for PERJURY under Art. dated 7 October 2015 (written in Tagalog. that the document was merely a harmless record/minutes of the their Barangay meeting.knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles. shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein. AND VOLUNTARY KNOWLEDGE. FURTHER. . shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section. unfair.False testimony in other cases and PERJURY in solemn affirmation.” WHEREFORE. 7. 183 of the Rev.6. 27 January 2016. upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. . UNDER THE MISLEADING AND FALSE REPRESENTATION of Barangay Deputy Xxx. and WITHOUT A FULL. shall testify under oath. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person. in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath. INTELLIGENT. the herein Complainants pray for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. in cahoots with XXX and the Respondent. the reason being that he was forced to sign the same UNDER DURESS. The herein Complainant XXX has REVOKED the dubious. invalid. or make an affidavit. CONSENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF on his part. who. which is not the mother language of the Complainant xxx). and misleading BARANGAY KASUNDUAN.