Republic of the Philippines )

____________, ________ ) s.s.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

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:

1. 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
hereinbelow.

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 Kasunduan, dated 7 October 2015; Final Demand Letter, dated 12
November 2015; and Special Power of Attorney, dated 14 December 2015) are attached hereto
as Annex “A”, with sub-markings. In the said sworn statement, the Respondent charged the
herein Complainant XXX for the alleged crime of Estafa. It was docketed as xxx, entitled “xxx
vs. xxx”. It is undergoing preliminary investigation before Asst. City Prosecutor xxx.

3.1. In Question and Answer Nos. 4, 6, and 7 of the said Sworn Statement of the Respondent, he
perjuriously alleged the following statements of material facts under oath:

“x x x.

O4. T – Bakit mo e-reklamo (sic) yung taong iyong nabanggit? (i.e., herein Complainant xxx).

S - Dahil po sa hindi pag bayad sa akin ng perang hiniram nya na

nagkakahalagang PhP326,000.00.

O5. T - Kailan, saan, 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, kaya sinimulan po namin ito sa akin po siya kumukuha ng pera at siya ang nagpapalabas,
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 PhP326,000.00 at noong kinausap ko na
po siya ay puro kanalang PANGAKO NG PANGAKO (sic).”

X x x.”

3.2. The aforecited statements of the Respondent xxx under oath were false and perjurious, 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, malicious, felonious, baseless, unfounded and unjust FABRICATION intended by the
Respondent XXX: (a) To collect a loan that the herein Complainants had already paid in full;
and (b) To earn unjust, huge and usuri0us interests and/or penalties/surcharges on the said fully
paid loan, without any legal and contractual basis therefor, and solely for the selfish financial gain
and benefit of the Respondent SAMPAMNG and his anonymous Financier.

3.3. The truth of the matter is that: The Complainant XXX does not owe any amount whatsoever to the
Respondent XXX ; and The act of the Respondent XXX of initiating the aforementioned Estafa
case against the herein Complainant XXX, without any legal and factual basis, has caused him to
suffer mental anguish, extreme anxieties, sleepless nights, and besmirched reputation on
the part of the herein Complainants.

3.4. The CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT FACTS AND EVENTS in support of this Complaint for
Perjury as discussed hereinbelow.

3.5. On 20 September 2014 or thereabout, the Complainant XXX was in need of P15, 000.00 for
the tuition fees of his child enrolled at the xxx. He sought the assistance of the Respondent.
The Respondent said he could lend the herein Complainant XXX the amount the latter needed.
The Respondent said he had enough personal savings to accommodate the urgent need of the
 Complainant XXX. The Respondent did not mention that he would source the amount from an
outside Financier.

3.6. On 30 September 2014, when the herein Complainant XXX was ready to pay in full his said
P15, 000.00 loan, the Respondent demanded an additional amount of P6, 000.00 as interest on
the P15, 000.00 principal loan for the period of ten (10) days. The Respondent alleged that the
said amount was being required by his anonymous Financier. The herein Complainant XXX was
surprised by such a statement of the Respondent because the latter had earlier said that the
amount of P15, 000.00 was the Complainant’s own personal savings. The Complainants started
to suspect the honesty of the Complainant. The P6, 000.00 interest on the P15, 000.00
principal loan for a very short period of ten (10) days was usurious, unacceptable,
unconscionable, iniquitous, and immoral. Nonetheless, to avoid unnecessary interpersonal
problems with the Respondent, the Complainants paid, via a deposit to the bank account of
the Respondent, to the Respondent the principal loan of P15,000.00 and the interest of P6,
000.00 that the Respondent and his anonymous Financier were demanding.

3.7. As earlier stated, the Complainants paid the Respondent on 30 September 2014 the total
amount of P21, 000.00, broken down as follows: (a) P15, 000.00 as principal loan; and (b) P6,
000.00 as interest. Please note that the said P6, 000.00 interest amounted to an incredible,
usurious, iniquitous, unconscionable and immoral forty percent (40%) interest rate for the very
short period of ten (10) days (i.e., 20 September 2014 to 30 September 2014).

3.8. The abovementioned verbal loan transaction involving a principal amount of P15, 000.00 that took
place on 20 September 2014 was not evidenced by any promissory note, contract of loan,
voucher, official receipt, or similar financial or contractual document. It was a verbal loan
transaction. There was no oral or written stipulation whatsoever as to the interest,
penalties, or surcharges of the said verbal loan. Please note, too, that the Respondent did
not attach to his Estafa Complaint any promissory note, contract of loan, voucher, official
receipt, or similar financial or contractual documentto prove his claim against the herein
Complainants. 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; (b) Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, which
was based solely on the Barangay “Kasunduan”; and (c) Special Power of Attorney
(SPA), dated 14 December 2015, executed by the Respondent in favor of XXX (his daughter)
and XXX (his sister) on the pretext that he would be going abroad soon.

3.9. Two (2) weeks after 30 September 2014 (the date when the herein Complainants paid to the
Respondent the said amount of P21,000.00) -- or sometime in the middle of October 2014, --
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, 000.00 earlier made by
the Respondent; and (b) That the unidentified Financier of the Respondent was
allegedly demanding double the said amount of P21, 000.00, that is, a total of P42, 000.00. The
Complainants rejected such an unfair, unjust, iniquitous, unconscionable, immoral, usurious, and
unacceptable demand for P42, 000.00.

3.10. Please note that the Respondent’s demand for P42, 000.00 as of 15 October 2014 or thereabout,
in relation to the original verbal loan of P15, 000.00 contracted by the herein Complainant XXX
on 20 September 2014, would amount to a huge and unjust interest of thirty-five percent (35%)
for very short period of twenty-five (25) days (i.e., 20 September 2014 to 15 October 2014).
This was clearly usurious, immoral, unacceptable, iniquitous, unconscionable, and unjustified,
considering that no interest was formally agreed upon or stipulated when the verbal loan for
P15, 000.00 was consummated between the Complainant XXX and the Respondent on 20
September 2014. 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.
Neither did the Respondent present to the herein Complainants at that time and up to the
present time any documentary proof of demand/collection, statement of account, billing,
letter, 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, 000.00
at that time.

3.11. The Complainants at that time demanded that the Respondent the name, address and contact
details of the anonymous Financier so that the herein Complainants could personally discuss and
explain his position to the Financier. But the Respondent refused and continues to refuse to this
very day to give to the herein Complainants the name, address and contact details of the
anonymous Financier.

3.12. After the said telephone call of the Respondent to the herein Complainant XXX made on 15
October 2014 or thereabout, the Respondent kept quiet for two (2) months. 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 P15,000.00 made
on 20 September 2014 had already escalated to P100,000.00 as of the date of his call in
December 2014. The Respondent alleged that he had mortgaged his house to his anonymous
Financier to pay for the said unpaid interest of the herein Complainant XXX. The herein
 Complainants, doubting the sincerity and truthfulness of the allegation of the Respondent,
demanded the name, address and contact details of the Financier so that the herein
Complainants could forthwith talk and discuss the issue with the said Financier. They also
demanded copies of any documentary proof justifying the claim of P100, 000.00 interest as of
that time (December 2014). 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.

3.13. On 7 October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent again called up the herein Complainant XXX,
saying that the former was at that time waiting inside Xxx Xxx I Subdivision near the home of the
herein Complainants, inside his van, and that the Respondent wished to talk with the herein
Complainant XXX for a while about his loan. The herein Complainant XXX agreed to meet with
the Respondent outside his home. When they met, the Respondent asked the herein
Complainant XXX to go inside his van for a more private discussion. When the herein
Complainant XXX the van of the Respondent, he was surprised to see a man who identified
himself as XXX XXX, who showed the Respondent a government ID. XXX threatened the
Respondent with the following words:

“HOY, IKAW, LOKO KA HA! MAY UTANG KA PALA NANG GANITO KALAKI KAY XXX. HINDI
MO BA AKO KILALA? xxx AKO NG ASSOCIATION NG XXX XXX. SUMAMA KA SA AKIN SA
BARANGAY. PAG HINDI KA SUMAMA, PAPALABASIN KO KAYO SA XXX AT HINDI NA KAYO
PWEDE TUMIRA DITO.”

3.14. Although the herein Complainant XXX, being a xxx national, has no perfect mastery of the
Tagalog language, 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. 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, he was forced by XXX and the Respondent to go with them to the
Barangay Hall of Barangay Xxx 5, Xxx Xxx City right that very moment.

3.15. At the Barangay Hall, the herein Complainant XXX told the Barangay officer, by the name
of “Deputy xxx ”, (a) That he had not received any formal Barangay complaint or formal
Barangay summons; and (b) That the claim of the Respondent for P366, 000.00 was
baseless, unfounded, untrue, false, and fabricated.

3.16. The herein Complainant XXX, without the aid of an interpreter,was forced by Barangay Deputy
XXX, XXX, and the Respondent to sign a page of the Barangay logbook, which turned out later to
be a “KASUNDUAN”.

3.17. The herein Complainant XXX was misled by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX, and the Respondent
that the document was only a harmless record or minutes of the Barangay meeting. 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.

3.18. The herein Complainant XXX signed the Kasunduan UNDER DURESS. He was MISLED by
Barangay Deputy XXX to sign it. He was threatened/intimidated by XXX and the Respondent to
sign it. He did not understand its contents, consequences, and legal effects because, as a
Japanese national, he has no mastery of English and Tagalog, although he could understand and
speak some simple conversational English and Tagalog words. He was not assisted by an
Interpreter or by a lawyer of his choice. All he knew was that the said document was
a harmless minutes of meeting, as represented to him by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX and the
Respondent.

3.19. Later, in his criminal complaint for Estafa against the herein Complainant XXX, 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. 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.

3.20. Aside from the suspicious Kasunduan, the Respondent has not presented any credible document,
such as, but not necessarily limited to, a CONTRACT OF LOAN, a PROMISSORY NOTE, a
VOUCHER, a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, or a BILL executed or signed by the Lender and the
Borrower: To prove the financial claim of the Respondent and his anonymous Financier; To
prove the veracity of the computation/s of the usurious, unconscionable and iniquitous interests of
the herein Complainant XXX; 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, containing the
amount of the principal loan, the stipulated interest rate, the stimulated penalties and surcharges,
if any and other covenants related to the agreed loan.
3.21. After a few days from 7 October 2015, the Respondent made a series of calls to the herein
Complainant XXX, pestering the latter to pay his alleged obligation. The Respondent alleged and
stated: That the payment should be made by the herein Complainant XXX at the home of XXX,
vice president of the homeowners association of Xxx Xxx Subdivision (who was not a party to
the oral loan transaction); That the Respondent would soon leave for abroad; That his wife
would soon return from abroad; and That it would be a great problem on his part if his wife would
discover that he had mortgaged his house (and, this time, allegedly including his van) to his
anonymous Financier to secure the alleged obligation of the herein Complainant XXX.

3.22. Sometime in the latter part of October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent visited the home of
the herein Complainants, accompanied by an unidentified man whose appearance appeared to
be suspicious. The Respondent repeated his demand to be paid, this time, in the total amount
of P366, 000.00. The herein Complainants insisted that they had already settled in full his
original verbal loan of P15, 000.00 with P6, 000.00 interest. 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, 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. Ignoring the foregoing demand of the herein Complainants, 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. 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.

3.23. Please note that in the Barangay KASUNDUAN, dated 7 October 2015, the alleged financial
obligation of the herein Complainant XXX, according to the Respondent, was P366, 000.00. It
contradicts the Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, of the Respondent, which
claimed the total amount of P326, 000.00 - or a huge and unexplained difference of P40,
000.00.

3.24. On 26 November 2015 the herein Complainant confronted XXX at his home in Xxx
Xxx Subdivision. She brought along with her, as her mediators/witnesses, the Spouses XXX
AND XXX. Xxx was a past president of the homeowners association of the subdivision. During
the said confrontation, the Respondent was mysteriously present inside the home of XXX. In that
confrontation, herein Complainant XXX told XXX: That the herein Complainants have been
residents/tenants of the subdivision for seven (7) years; 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, XXX should have taken steps to protect the herein
Complainants as residents/tenants of the subdivision (i.e., as his constituents in the subdivision)
against the baseless and unfounded claim of the Respondent; 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; and that he should not have
believed outright, hook line and sinker, the said claim of the Respondent without first giving
the herein Complainants an opportunity to be heard; That the act of XXX of coercively bringing
the herein Complainant XXX to the Barangay Hall on 7 October 2015, without the assistance of
the herein Complainant XXX and based solely on the personal request of the Respondent -- 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, unfair, and illegal act of harassment, intimidation, and unjust vexation.

3.25. To put an end to abusive and pestering collection behavior of the Respondent -- and solely to buy
peace, 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, 000.00 -- the herein
Complainants paid the Respondent an additional amount of P47, 000.00 on October 15,
2015, via a deposit to the bank account of the Respondent, hoping that such an amount would
finally end the baseless claim and collection pestering/harassment of the Respondent. But it was
not so. The Respondent continues to insist on his claim of P366, 000.00 by filing a harassment
case for Estafa.

3.26. The herein Complainants believes that the Complainant is using the Criminal Justice
System as his own coercive COLLECTION AGENCY. It is the hope and prayer of the herein
Complainants that this Honorable Office would resist the malicious move of the Complainant
to use, mislead, and exploit it as his pro bono personal COLLECTION AGENCY.

3.27. On 26 November 2015, the herein Complainant XXX filed a complaint with Barangay Xxx against
the Complainant and XXX. During the Barangay conciliation XXX apologized to her for his
behavior. The herein affiant accepted his apology, with the hope that XXX would be more
discerning as a community leader in the future.

3.28. On January 18, 2016 at 7:00 PM, 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. (It was originally addressed to the old home
address of the herein Complainants in the same subdivision). The herein Complainants was
constrained to retain the legal services of the LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES,
 Xxx Xxx City, to defend their legal and constitutional rights, in the interest of truth and justice; to
disprove the false, fabricated, baseless, unfounded, and malicious claim of the Complainant; and
to file the necessary criminal and/or civil counter-charges against the Respondent.

4. CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT. -

Please note the internal contradictions and inadequacies among the documents submitted by
the Respondent in the Estafa case.

AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED CLAIM:

(a) In his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given before the Xxx City Police Station,
the Respondent claims P326,000.00;

(b) In the Barangay Kasunduan, 7 October 2015, he claims P366,000.00;

(c) In the Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, he claims P326,000.00;

(d) In the Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, he claims P326,000.00;

(e) Please note that in all of the foregoing allegations no VOUCHERS, OFFICIAL RECEIPTS,
STATEMENTS OF ACCOUINTS, BILLS, PROMISSORY NOTES, CONTRACTS OF LOAN,
and/or DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS were presented by the Respondent to prove his claim.

AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED LOAN OF THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT XXX.

(a) In his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given before the Xxx Xxx City Police
Station, the Respondent alleged that he and the Respondent agreed to go into the business of
money lending. (Q and A No. 6).

(b) In his Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, he alleged that his claim
was based on alleged “Ticket Purchase”. (Par. 1, SPA).

(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. 6 of his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December
2015, e.g., AGREEMENT/CONTRACT, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, ARTICLES
OF PARTNERSHIP, AFFIDAVIT, UNDERTAKING, DEED, LETTERS AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS, and the like.

(d) Please note, too, that the Respondent has not presented any proof of the alleged “Ticket
Purchase” of the herein Complainant XXX, referred to in Par. 1 of his SPA, dated 14 December
2015, e.g., VOUCHERS, PLANE TICKETS, BILLS, STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT,
UNDERTAKINGS, DEEDS, LETTERS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS, and the like.

5. 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, dated 30 September 2014, in the
amount of P21, 000.00 paid to the bank account of the Respondent - to prove the full payment by
the Complainants of their oral loan dated 20 September 2014, broken down as
follows: The agreed principal loan of P15, 000.00; and The unstipulated interest of P6,
000.oo demanded by the Respondent.

(b) Annex “C” and “C-1” – Barangay Blotter, dated 26 November 2015, re: the Barangay
complaint of the herein Complainant XXX against the unjust and coercive acts of harassment of
the Respondent and XXX XXX.

Note:

Due to lack of material time, the herein Complainants cannot submit as an annex of this pleading
at this time a copy of the xxx Cash Deposit Slip, dated 15 October 2015, in the amount of P47,
000.00 to prove that the herein Complainants had deposited the said amount to the bank account
of the Respondent to buy peace, without admitting any liability on the part of the herein
Complainant XXX and without admitting the validity of the claim of the Respondent. The
herein Complainants will attempt this week to secure from the Bank a formal Certification of its
Branch Manager to corroborate the foregoing fact. The herein Complainants reserve the right to
present the said bank certification as an annex to their future Reply-Affidavit. The said Cash
 Deposit Slip was misplaced or thrown away by the housemaid of the herein Complainants,
together with other personal papers, when their family recently moved to their new home
address in the same subdivision. The housemaid mistakenly thought that those papers were
trash and unnecessary.

At any rate, please note that the Complaint admits in Q and A No. 7 of his Sworn Statement,
dated 14 December 2015, that he indeed RECEIVED from the Respondent the said amount
of P47,000.00.

6. The herein Complainant XXX has REVOKED the dubious, unfair, invalid, and misleading
BARANGAY KASUNDUAN, dated 7 October 2015 (written in Tagalog, which is not the mother
language of the Complainant xxx), the reason being that he was forced to sign the same UNDER
DURESS, UNDER THE MISLEADING AND FALSE REPRESENTATION of Barangay Deputy
Xxx, in cahoots with XXX and the Respondent, that the document was merely a harmless
record/minutes of the their Barangay meeting, and WITHOUT A FULL, INTELLIGENT, AND
VOLUNTARY KNOWLEDGE, CONSENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL EFFECTS
AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF on his part.

7. ARTICLE 183 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“Article 183. - False testimony in other cases and PERJURY in solemn affirmation. — The
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon any person, who, knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being
included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an
affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an
oath in cases in which the law so requires.

Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of
the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the
respective penalties provided therein.”

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Respondent be indicted for PERJURY under
Art. 183 of the Rev. Penal Code and/or such other penal laws as may be justified/warranted
by the facts of this case.

FURTHER, the herein Complainants pray for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just
and equitable in the premises.

Xxx Xxx City, 27 January 2016.

XXX XXX
Complainant
xxx St.
Xxx Subd.
Xxx City

XXX XXX
Complainant
Xxx St.
Xxx Subd.
Xxx City

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Xxx Xxx City on ___ January 2016.