OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Xxx AND xxx
THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANTS-AFFIANTS xxx and xxx, both of legal age and residing at 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 Homes, 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 violation of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, or R.A. No. 3765.
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 City. 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. 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 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 XXX na magnenegosyo kung saan magpapahiram po kami sa kasamahan niyang hapon (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 is that the Estafa complaint filed by the Respondent (as Complainant therein) 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, for the selfish financial 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. It appears that the Respondent and his anonymous Financier are regularly engaged in the business of lending money to individuals/borrowers at usurious and unconscionable interest rates. There is no showing that their lending business is single proprietorship or a partnership or a corporation. There is no showing that they are licensed, registered or authorized to engage in the business of money lending.
3.6. 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 that he needed. It later appeared that the Respondent was acting as an agent of an anonymous Financier, who provided the Respondent with regular funds to lend out to his clients/borrowers for a huge and usurious interest rates.
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 document to 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 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 Respondent 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 Complainant was allegedly demanding double the said amount of P21, 000.00, that is, a total of P42, 000.00. The Respondent 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 Subdivision near the home of the herein Complainants, inside his van, and that the Respondent 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 ANNIVER. HINDI MO BA AKO KILALA? VICE PRESIDENT AKO NG ASSOCIATION NG 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, 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 R. 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 English and Tagalog words and phrases. 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 Respondent. 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 past-due 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 AXXX at the home of XXX, xxx of the homeowners association of 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 allegedly 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 XXX confronted XXX at his home in Xxx Subdivision. She brought along with her, as her mediators/witnesses, the Spouses XXX. Alex 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 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 a formal Barangay complaint and without the prior issuance of a formal Barangay summons to the herein Complainant XXX -- was an unjust, unfair, improper, irregular, anomalous 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 Respondent 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 Subdivision. (It was originally addressed to the old home address of the herein Complainants in the same subdivision).
The herein Complainants were constrained to retain the legal services of the LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES, Xxx City, to defend their legal and constitutional rights in the litigation of the instant case, 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 Complainant XXX had 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 documents to support their instant complaint for Perjury:
(a) Annex “B” - XXX Cash Deposit Slip #xxx, 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 Complainant of the 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.
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. It will be noted that REPUBLIC ACT No. 3765, AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE OF FINANCE CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT and otherwise known as the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, “declares it to be the policy of the State to protect its citizens from a lack of awareness of the true cost of credit to the user by assuring a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the national economy”. (Sec. 2, RA 3765).
Under the said Act, "Credit" means “any loan, mortgage, deed of trust, advance, or discount; any conditional sales contract; any contract to sell, or sale or contract of sale of property or services, either for present or future delivery, under which part or all of the price is payable subsequent to the making of such sale or contract; any rental-purchase contract; any contract or arrangement for the hire, bailment, or leasing of property; any option, demand, lien, pledge, or other claim against, or for the delivery of, property or money; any purchase, or other acquisition of, or any credit upon the security of, any obligation
of claim arising out of any of the foregoing; and any transaction or series of transactions having a similar purpose or effect.” (Sec. 3, Id.).
It defines "Finance charge" as “interest, fees, service charges, discounts, and such other charges incident to the extension of credit as the Board may be regulation prescribe.” (Id.).
It defines "Creditor" as “any person engaged in the business of extending credit (including any person who as a regular business practice make loans or sells or rents property or services on a time, credit, or installment basis, either as principal or as agent) who requires as an incident to the extension of credit, the payment of a finance charge.” (Id.).
Section 4 of the said Act provides that “any creditor shall furnish to each person to whom credit is extended, prior to the consummation of the transaction, a clear statement in writing setting forth, to the extent applicable and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board, the following information:
(1) the cash price or delivered price of the property or service to be acquired;
(2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment and/or trade-in;
(3) the difference between the amounts set forth under clauses (1) and (2);
(4) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or to be paid by such person in connection with the transaction but which are not incident to the extension of credit;
(5) the total amount to be financed;
(6) the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and
(7) the percentage that the finance bears to the total amount to be financed expressed as a simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.”
The said clear statement in writing is commonly called the FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.
Section 6 of the said Act provides “any person who willfully violates any provision of this Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be fined by not less than P1,00 or more than P5,000 or imprisonment for not less than 6 months, nor more than one year or both”. The same section also provides that “a final judgment hereafter rendered in any criminal proceeding under this Act to the effect that a defendant has willfully violated this Act shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in an action or proceeding brought by any other party against such defendant under this Act as to all matters respecting which said judgment would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto”.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Respondent be indicted for violation of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (R.A. 3765).
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 Homes , xxx
Xxx, Xxx City
No. xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
xxx, Xxx City
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Xxx Xxx City on ___ January 2016.
Administering Assistant City Prosecutor