Sworn Statement as Evidence of Unauthorized Collection of Money


**Sworn Statements as Evidence of Unauthorized Collection of Money

(Philippine Legal Context – 2025)**

“An affidavit is a poor substitute for oral testimony, but it is often the doorway through which cases of financial abuse first reach the courts.”


1. What counts as “unauthorized collection of money”?

Scenario Governing provision(s) Typical complainant’s sworn statement will allege…
Public officer charges fees not allowed by law Art. 213(2), Revised Penal Code (Illegal exactions) Demand for payment, lack of legal basis, personal handing-over of cash
Private individual solicits, collects or receives fees without the required license or permit (e.g., placement agencies, charitable fund drives, money-service businesses) Art. 315 & 318, RPC (Estafa & Other Deceits)
PD 1564 (Charitable Solicitations Act)
RA 10364 (Anti-Trafficking, for illegal recruitment payments)
Bangko Sentral regs on remittance & e-money
Representation of authority; amount, date and mode of payment; absence of DOLE/SEC/BSP permit
Agent or employee collects company funds but pockets them Art. 315(1)(b), RPC – Misappropriation Entrustment, obligation to turn over money, subsequent demand and failure to account
School, training center, or condominium collects “advance” fees without CHED/TESDA/HUDCC approval Sector-specific charters, Consumer Act (RA 7394) Absence of statutory approval; copies of flyers or receipts; aggregate amount collected

2. Nature of a sworn statement

  1. Definition – A written narration of facts executed under oath before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths (Rule 132 § 6, Rules of Court; 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice).

  2. Components

    • Caption & title (e.g., Complaint-Affidavit).
    • Personal details of affiant (name, age, address, citizenship, capacity).
    • Body in numbered paragraphs stating personal knowledge.
    • Signature + jurat (“SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN…”).
    • Annexes (receipts, screenshots, demand letters).
  3. Electronic sworn statements – Permitted if:

    • Signed with a digital certificate compliant with RA 8792 (E-Commerce Act); or
    • Notarized through remote notarization under SC A.C. No. 127-2020 (extended to 2025).
  4. Perjury exposure – Falsehoods are punishable under Art. 183, RPC, and now carry higher penalties under RA 11594 (2021 amendment).


3. Admissibility under the Rules on Evidence (as amended 2019)

Stage How the sworn statement is used Key admissibility point
(a) Filing of criminal complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor Complaint-Affidavit initiates preliminary investigation (Rule 112 § 3). Prosecutor may rely on affidavits; cross-examination is not yet required.
(b) Application for search/arrest warrant Affidavit supplies probable cause facts before the judge (Rule 126 § 5). Must show personal knowledge; judge must personally examine affiant.*
(c) Trial proper Affiant takes the witness stand; affidavit is offered as direct testimony and marked as Exhibit “A”. Without cross-examination, the affidavit alone is hearsay (Rule 130 § 37).
(d) Administrative or civil actions Affidavits often received in lieu of oral testimony (e.g., NLRC, SEC, PRC). Tribunals may relax rules; weight depends on substantial evidence standard.

* Lagman v. Paulate (G.R. 183348, Mar. 30 , 2011): judge’s “probing questions” requirement.


4. Weight & credibility considerations

  1. Personal knowledge – The affiant must have first-hand knowledge of the handing of money; otherwise the statement is “conjectural”.

  2. Corroboration by receipts or electronic records – Courts routinely look for bank slips, GCASH logs, emails, Viber chats.

  3. Consistency & spontaneity – Time-lapse between the collection and execution of the affidavit; presence of motive or undue influence.

  4. Opportunity for cross-examination – The defense may:

    • Inspect the notarial register;
    • Challenge identification of signatures;
    • Impeach by prior inconsistent statements.
  5. Self-serving vs. admission – An accused’s own sworn statement can be an extra-judicial admission, admissible even without cross (Rule 130 § 4).


5. Jurisprudence sampler

Case Holding relevant to affidavits & unauthorized collection
People v. Palma (G.R. 219381, Sept 14 2020) Estafa conviction affirmed; victim’s sworn complaint with GCASH screenshots plus testimony sufficient to prove fraudulent collection.
People v. Rey (G.R. 246779, Jan 31 2022) Affidavit alone insufficient where affiant failed to appear; accused acquitted for doubt.
Cagang v. Sandiganbayan (837 Phil 815 [2018]) Clarified that affidavits in preliminary investigation are not evidence per se at trial; live testimony essential.
Heirs of Malate v. Gamboa (G.R. 196215, Feb 19 2020) In civil action for recovery of sums, notarized sworn statements of payors raised a presumption of authenticity of receipts under Rule 132 § 20.
Soriano v. People (G.R. 210281, Apr 10 2019) Illegal exactions: taxpayer’s sworn affidavit and uncertified photocopy of receipt were enough for probable cause, but not for conviction absent original receipt.

6. Drafting tips for counsel and complainants

  1. Narrate the money flow chronologically – date collected, amount, purpose, authority invoked by collector, mode of payment, subsequent demand.
  2. Identify all persons present – necessary for corroborative witness affidavits.
  3. Attach primary documents – original receipt, screenshot, chat logs; label them Annex “A”, “B”… and cross-reference in the affidavit.
  4. State basis for knowledge – e.g., “I personally handed the cash to Mr. X…” or “I opened the company safe and saw…”.
  5. Include demand and refusal – especially for estafa prosecutions; a letter-demand is often A-1 evidence.
  6. Observe notarial formalities – affiant presents a current ID; notary keeps a thumb-mark and photograph where required (Notarial Practice Rule § 12).
  7. Consider multiple affidavits – Victim, witness, handwriting expert (to authenticate receipts), bank officer (to certify account).

7. Common defenses against the sworn statement

Defense Mode of attack
Hearsay objection Argue that affiant did not testify, or facts stated are not of personal knowledge.
Defective notarization Show expired commission, missing notarial seal, or failure to record in notarial book (renders document a private writing).
Variances & inconsistencies Cross-examine on discrepancies between affidavit and in-court testimony.
Entrapment / payment was authorized Produce board resolution, SPA, or permit authorizing collection.
Denial of due process in preliminary investigation Show that affidavit was withheld or not supplied, violating Rule 112 § 3 rights.

8. Interaction with other types of evidence

  • Receipts & ledgers – fall under commercial lists and entries (Rule 130 § 42 & 43).
  • Electronic data messages – admissible if authenticated as required by the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
  • Object evidence – marked cash from entrapment operations (Rule 130 § 2).
  • Judicial notice – prevailing exchange rates for damages computation.

9. Administrative & regulatory venues

  • BSP Financial Consumer Protection Dept. – complaint-affidavit triggers examination of unauthorized remittance agents.
  • DOLE / POEA – migrant-worker recruiters face suspension upon sworn complaints of illegal fees.
  • SEC Enforcement & Investor Protection – affidavits on investment scams used to secure cease-and-desist orders.
  • DepEd, CHED, TESDA – surcharge-collection complaints by students supported by affidavits can lead to permit revocation.

10. Practical checklist for litigators (2025 update)

  1. Verify notarization in the online Notary Public Roll (OCA website).
  2. E-notarized affidavits: Attach the XML Notarial Act Data or QR code.
  3. Ensure GDPR-like data privacy compliance when attaching IDs or bank details (DPA 2012).
  4. Bundle and paginate all affidavits and annexes in a single PDF with bookmarks for e-filing under A.M. 11-9-4-SC.
  5. Prepare a joint judicial affidavit (Rule 119-A) for speedy trial once information is filed.

Key Take-aways

  1. A sworn statement is indispensable for launching prosecutions or administrative actions over unauthorized monetary collections, but it is only the starting point.
  2. At trial, its probative value rises or falls on the presence of the affiant, corroborative documents, and credibility under cross-examination.
  3. Practitioners must keep abreast of the 2019 Evidence amendments, the Notarial Practice Rule, and digital-evidence protocols to harness affidavits effectively.
  4. Respondents can often defeat a bare affidavit through meticulous attacks on formal defects and by producing licensing documents that show authority to collect.

This article is for general guidance only and not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Laws and jurisprudence cited are current as of July 8, 2025, Philippines (UTC+8).

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.