1) What a “Complaint-Affidavit” is (and why it matters)

In the Philippines, many online scam cases begin not in court, but at the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor through a criminal complaint supported by a complaint-affidavit (and often witness affidavits). This is typically part of preliminary investigation—the prosecutor’s process for deciding whether there is probable cause to charge someone in court.

A complaint-affidavit is your sworn, first-person narration of facts showing:

what happened,
who did it (as best as you can identify),
what crime(s) it constitutes, and
what evidence proves it.

Because it is under oath, it carries legal weight; false statements can expose the affiant to liability.

Informational note: This is general legal information and drafting guidance, not legal advice for a specific case.

2) Common criminal laws used in online scam cases

Online scams are not “one-size-fits-all.” Prosecutors usually evaluate the pattern and the evidence trail (money + communications) and then match that to applicable laws.

A. Revised Penal Code (RPC): Estafa and related offenses

Many online scams are charged as Estafa (Swindling) under Article 315 of the RPC, especially when the suspect used deceit to induce the victim to part with money or property. Depending on the facts, prosecutors may also consider:

Other Deceits (e.g., certain fraudulent schemes),
False pretenses / fraudulent acts (as the mode of estafa),
Other related RPC offenses depending on what occurred (e.g., threats, falsification issues if documents were forged, etc.).

Key idea in estafa (simplified):

Deceit by the offender;
Victim relied on it;
Victim gave money/property;
Victim suffered damage;
Deceit was the cause of the transfer and damage.

B. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)

Online scams may be charged under RA 10175 in two common ways:

Computer-related fraud (a cybercrime offense) when the fraud is committed through computer systems or data in a way that fits the law’s definitions (often invoked for phishing, credential theft, manipulations, etc.).
“In relation to” RA 10175 (use of ICT): If an existing crime (like estafa) is committed through and with the use of information and communications technology (ICT), RA 10175 can apply so the offense is treated as a cybercrime-related case for purposes of coverage and (commonly understood) penalty treatment. In complaints, this is often pleaded as: “Estafa under Article 315, in relation to Section 6 of RA 10175” (wording varies by office practice).

C. Other potentially relevant laws (fact-dependent)

Depending on the scam’s mechanics, prosecutors may also consider:

Access Devices Regulation Act (RA 8484) for certain credit card/access device fraud patterns;
E-Commerce Act (RA 8792) and the Rules on Electronic Evidence for admissibility/authentication of electronic documents (more on this below);
Other special laws if the scam involves specific regulated fields (e.g., investment solicitation, identity misuse, etc.), but these require careful fact-matching.

3) Where you usually file (and why “where” should appear in your affidavit)

A. Filing offices

A typical route is:

Office of the City Prosecutor / Provincial Prosecutor (for preliminary investigation and filing of Information in court), and/or
PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) or NBI Cybercrime Division (for investigative support, referrals, and evidence development).

Even if you seek help from PNP/NBI first, the criminal charging decision usually culminates at the prosecutor’s office.

B. Venue/jurisdiction facts you should include

Your affidavit should state facts showing why the Philippines / a particular city/province has jurisdiction/venue, such as:

where you were located when you sent money or received the deceptive messages,
where you remitted/paid (bank/branch/e-wallet registration location if relevant),
where the suspect is believed to reside or operate,
where the online account was used to transact with you.

Cybercrime rules can be broader, but you still help your case by anchoring concrete location facts.

4) Before drafting: build an evidence pack (this often decides the outcome)

Online scam cases succeed or fail on documentation. Prosecutors want a clear money trail + communications trail + identity trail.

A. Money trail (most important)

Gather:

Bank transfer receipts, deposit slips, transaction history, screenshots from banking apps (with reference numbers),
E-wallet transfer confirmation (GCash/Maya/others),
Remittance receipts,
Proof of cash-out if available,
The exact amount, date/time, reference numbers, and recipient account details.

Drafting tip: Put these into a chronological transaction table (date, amount, channel, reference no., recipient, purpose).

B. Communications trail

Gather:

Screenshots of chats (Messenger/Telegram/Viber/WhatsApp/SMS),
Emails, DMs, marketplace messages,
Voice call logs (if any),
The scammer’s posted offers, listings, profile pages, “proof” screenshots they sent.

Drafting tip: Preserve the context (show the conversation thread, not just one message). Include dates/times and account identifiers.

C. Identity trail

Gather:

URLs, usernames/handles, profile names, phone numbers, email addresses,
Bank/e-wallet account names and numbers used,
Delivery addresses (if any), tracking numbers, rider details (if any),
Any IDs they sent you (even if fake—still relevant),
Any other victims (if they contacted you) and their statements if they are willing.

D. Preservation and “don’t sabotage your evidence”

Do not edit screenshots (avoid cropping out timestamps/account names unless you must redact third-party data; if you redact, keep the unredacted original for submission).
Save original files when possible (export chat history, keep original email headers where available).
Keep a simple chain-of-custody note: when you captured, where stored, and that it’s a true and correct copy.

5) The Complaint-Affidavit: required parts and best-practice structure

Prosecutors favor affidavits that read like a clean incident narrative backed by labeled annexes.

A. Caption and case title

Typical format:

Republic of the Philippines
Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (place)
(Your Name), Complainant versus
(Suspect’s Name / “John Doe” + identifiers), Respondent
For: Estafa (Art. 315), in relation to RA 10175, and/or other applicable offenses

If the respondent’s real name is unknown, use:

“John Doe / Jane Doe” and add identifiers: “the user of Facebook account ‘___’, using mobile number ___, recipient of GCash ___, etc.”

B. Personal circumstances

State:

Your name, age, citizenship, civil status (optional), address, and contact details,
That you are the complainant/victim.

C. Oath intro

A standard opening:

“I, [Name], after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state:”

D. Chronological statement of facts (the heart of the affidavit)

Write in numbered paragraphs. Include:

How you encountered the offer/contact (platform, date, link/profile).
What representations were made (price, legitimacy claims, “guarantees,” “tracking,” “promo,” etc.).
What made you rely (screenshots of “proof,” reviews, fake IDs, pressure tactics).
The agreement and payment demand (how much, why, deadlines).
The payment(s) (dates, channels, account details, reference numbers).
Post-payment conduct (blocking, excuses, non-delivery, requests for more money).
Your demand/refund efforts (messages, deadlines, refusal).
Damage (amount lost, additional costs, emotional distress is not the criminal “damage,” but financial/property loss is central).
Indicators of fraud (reused scripts, inconsistent identities, multiple victims, fake tracking numbers).

Drafting tip: Avoid pure conclusions like “he obviously scammed me.” Instead: “After I paid, the account blocked me and never delivered, despite repeated follow-ups.”

E. Identify the respondent with specificity

Even if you don’t know the true name, include:

profile name + URL + user ID if available,
phone numbers,
e-wallet/bank recipient details,
any delivery addresses,
any photos used,
other accounts linked by the same person (if you can substantiate).

F. Alleged offense(s) and elements (brief, not a law-school essay)

A practical approach is a short section:

For Estafa (Art. 315):
- Deceit: (cite specific false claims)
- Reliance: (why you believed it)
- Delivery of money: (transaction proof)
- Damage: (amount lost)
- Causation: (you paid because of the deceit)
In relation to RA 10175 / cybercrime:
- The deceit and solicitation were done through (Facebook/Telegram/Marketplace, etc.), and payments were arranged online.

Keep it factual and tethered to annexes.

G. Evidence list and annex markings

Add a section:

“Attached are the following documents as integral parts of this affidavit:”

Then list:

Annex “A” – Screenshot of respondent’s profile and listing
Annex “B” – Chat screenshots (pages __)
Annex “C” – Proof of payment / transaction receipts
Annex “D” – Demand messages and respondent’s responses
Annex “E” – Any other supporting documents

Drafting tip: Put page numbers on printed annexes and reference those pages in your narrative.

H. Prayer (what you want the prosecutor to do)

A standard closing request:

that respondent be required to answer,
that probable cause be found, and
that an Information be filed in court for the appropriate offenses,
plus “such other reliefs as are just and equitable” (optional).

I. Signature, verification, jurat (notarization)

Sign above your printed name.
The affidavit must be subscribed and sworn before a notary public or authorized officer administering oaths.
Bring competent IDs and comply with notarial requirements.

6) Writing style that prosecutors prefer

Do:

Use short, numbered paragraphs. One event per paragraph.
Use exact dates, times, amounts.
Quote or paraphrase the exact deceptive statements (and point to annexes).
Make your annexes easy to verify: show account numbers, reference numbers, URLs.

Don’t:

Overload with insults, speculation, or motives you can’t prove (“syndicate,” “money laundering,” etc. without basis).
Rely on hearsay summaries (“my friend said…”), unless your friend executes a separate affidavit.
Submit edited screenshots that look manipulated.

7) Electronic evidence: how to make screenshots and chats more usable in proceedings

Philippine practice recognizes electronic documents, but you still need to be ready to authenticate them. In complaint-affidavit drafting, you strengthen your case by:

Stating how you obtained the screenshots (e.g., “I personally took these screenshots from my Messenger conversation with the account…”).
Stating they are true and correct representations of what you saw.
If available, keeping the original device and original files.

If later needed, additional authentication can come from:

testimony of the person who captured the messages (you),
platform records (if obtainable),
device examination or forensic extraction (if pursued by investigators).

8) A practical “charge mapping” for common online scam patterns

This helps you describe facts in the way prosecutors think:

A. Fake online seller / non-delivery after payment

Focus facts on:

listing + promise to deliver,
payment instructions,
non-delivery,
blocking / disappearing / repeated excuses,
refusal to refund.

Common charge: Estafa (often “false pretenses” mode), possibly in relation to RA 10175 due to ICT use.

B. “Investment” / doubling money / high-return schemes

Focus facts on:

promised returns and guarantees,
pressure tactics, “limited slots,”
multiple deposits, moving goalposts,
refusal to allow withdrawals.

Common charge: Estafa; other laws may apply depending on solicitation structure, but the affidavit should stick to provable misrepresentations and the money trail.

C. Phishing / account takeover / OTP capture

Focus facts on:

fake links, spoofed pages, OTP requests,
unauthorized transfers,
device/account compromise timeline.

Possible charges may include computer-related fraud patterns; facts must show the method and the unauthorized transactions.

D. Identity/impersonation scams

Focus facts on:

false identity representations,
proof of impersonation (screenshots),
damage caused through reliance.

9) Step-by-step drafting workflow (simple, repeatable)

Create a timeline (date/time → event → evidence).
Create an annex index and label everything before you write.
Draft the facts section to match the timeline; insert annex references as you go.
Add a short elements section tying facts to the offense.
Add prayer and finalize formatting.
Print annexes, paginate, and ensure consistency of names/handles/account numbers.
Execute notarization.

10) Filing mechanics and what happens after submission (typical sequence)

While practices vary per prosecutor’s office, a common flow in preliminary investigation is:

Filing of complaint + affidavit(s) + attachments.
Evaluation and issuance of subpoena (if sufficient in form/substance) directing the respondent to file a counter-affidavit.
Complainant may be allowed/required to file a reply-affidavit.
Possible clarificatory hearing (discretionary).
Prosecutor issues a Resolution (probable cause or dismissal).
If probable cause: filing of Information in court and case raffling.

Appeal/remedy structures exist (e.g., motions for reconsideration or review), but drafting a strong initial complaint-affidavit is the most controllable factor.

11) Common pitfalls that weaken complaint-affidavits

No proof of payment, or proof doesn’t identify the recipient account.
Screenshots that omit the account identifiers or dates/times.
Narrative that’s emotional but missing elements (no clear deceit statement; no clear reliance; unclear damage amount).
Filing against a person with no identifying link to the money trail (e.g., blaming a profile but payment went to an unrelated account without explaining linkage).
Inconsistent details (amounts/dates/recipient names don’t match annexes).
Overcharging with speculative crimes; better to plead the strongest provable theory.

12) Sample Complaint-Affidavit template (Philippine format; fill-in-the-blanks)

(Adjust formatting to the prosecutor’s office requirements.)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE CITY/PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR [City/Province]

[YOUR NAME], Complainant, -versus- [RESPONDENT NAME / “JOHN DOE”], Respondent.

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

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, [Your Full Name], Filipino, of legal age, residing at [address], after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state:

Personal circumstances. I am the complainant/victim in this case. My contact details are [mobile/email].
Encounter with respondent / offer. On [date], I saw/received [a post/message/listing] on [platform] from the account/user [name/handle] found at [URL/link if available] (Annex “A”).
Representations and inducement. Respondent represented that [state specific claims: item availability, authenticity, delivery time, guaranteed returns, etc.]. Respondent further stated [quote/paraphrase key deceptive statements] (Annex “B”, page __).
Agreement and payment instructions. Relying on these representations, I agreed to [purchase/invest] for PHP [amount]. Respondent instructed me to send payment to [bank/e-wallet] account [account name/number] (Annex “B”, page __).
Payment made. On [date/time], I sent PHP [amount] via [channel] to [recipient account details], with reference number [ref no.] (Annex “C”). [If multiple payments, enumerate each.]
Failure to deliver / refusal to return funds. After payment, respondent [failed to deliver / kept demanding more money / blocked me / gave false tracking / etc.]. Despite my follow-ups on [dates], respondent did not [deliver/refund] (Annex “D”).
Demand. I demanded [delivery/refund] on [date] through [platform]. Respondent [ignored/refused] (Annex “D”).
Damage. As a result, I suffered damage in the amount of PHP [total loss], representing [payments made + other direct costs, if any].
Use of ICT / cybercrime context. The fraudulent representations, solicitation, and coordination of payment were carried out through [platforms used], constituting use of information and communications technology in committing the offense.
Offense. Based on the foregoing, respondent should be held liable for Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA 10175 (and/or other applicable offenses based on the evidence), for employing deceit to induce me to part with my money, causing me damage.
Attachments. The attached annexes form an integral part of this affidavit:

Annex “A” – [description]
Annex “B” – [description]
Annex “C” – [description]
Annex “D” – [description]
Annex “E” – [description]

PRAYER WHEREFORE, I respectfully pray that respondent be required to answer this complaint, that probable cause be found, and that the corresponding Information be filed in court for the appropriate offense(s), and for such other reliefs as are just and equitable.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this [date] at [place], Philippines.

[YOUR NAME] Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of ______ 20__ in [place], affiant exhibiting to me competent evidence of identity [ID type/number].

(Notarial jurat and details)

13) Quick checklist (submission-ready)

Complaint-affidavit is notarized
Facts are chronological and numbered
All payments have annexed proof and are referenced in the narrative
Respondent identifiers included (profile URL/handle + recipient account details)
Annexes labeled, paginated, and readable
Clear statement of loss/damage amount
Clear statement of deceit and reliance
Place facts included for venue/jurisdiction anchoring

14) Bottom line

A strong Philippine complaint-affidavit for an online scam is less about dramatic language and more about a clean timeline that proves deceit + payment + loss, supported by organized annexes that identify the respondent through the money trail and account identifiers, with ICT use clearly described for cybercrime framing.