1) Understanding the “Police Blotter” in Scam Cases

A police blotter is the official logbook entry of an incident reported to a police station. In online selling scams, a blotter entry typically records:

who reported (complainant/victim)
what happened (scam method, amount lost, key details)
when and where it occurred (dates, locations, online platforms used)
who is involved (suspect identifiers, if known)
evidence presented (screenshots, receipts, chats, account details)
action taken (referral to investigators, advice given, next steps)

Important: A blotter entry is not yet a filed criminal case. It helps document the incident and can support follow-up steps (investigation, affidavit-taking, referral, or coordination with cybercrime units). It can also be useful when dealing with banks, e-wallet providers, platforms, and prosecutors—because it shows you promptly reported the incident.

Many victims stop at “pa-blotter,” but for prosecution you usually must go beyond blotter: execute a complaint-affidavit and file it for preliminary investigation at the prosecutor’s office (or inquest when appropriate).

2) The Core Question: “Where Do I Blotter if We’re in Different Provinces?”

Practical rule (what works on the ground)

You may report and request a blotter entry at the police station nearest you—usually the station with jurisdiction over your current location or residence—even if the seller/scammer is in another province.

The desk officer will record the incident and, depending on the facts, may:

refer you to the station’s investigator (sometimes Women and Children Protection Desk if minors/vulnerable persons are involved, but scam cases usually go to investigation units),
endorse your complaint to the station that has territorial jurisdiction over the suspect’s location (if known), and/or
refer you to specialized units (PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group / NBI Cybercrime Division).

Why this is acceptable

Online scams often involve:

online communications spanning multiple places,
money transfers from the victim’s location,
delivery attempts (or non-delivery) involving couriers,
e-wallet/bank touchpoints, and
a suspect location that may be uncertain at the start.

So, start where you are, get it recorded, and use that entry to support escalation.

3) Jurisdiction vs. Venue: Blotter Location vs. Where the Case Is Filed

A) Police blotter location

For the blotter, the key is accessibility and documentation:

Nearest police station to you is typically the fastest and most practical.
You can also blotter at a station where a key part happened (e.g., where you made the payment, where you received the parcel, where you discovered the fraud), if that’s more convenient.

B) Venue for the criminal complaint (prosecution)

For actual filing of a criminal complaint (beyond blotter), “venue” rules matter more. Online selling scams usually fall under:

Estafa (Swindling) under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), when deceit caused you to part with money/property and you suffered damage.
Possible Cybercrime-related offenses under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175), when committed through ICT systems (subject to how the acts fit the law and how prosecutors charge it).
Sometimes related laws depending on the method (e.g., identity misuse, access device fraud, etc.), but estafa is the common backbone.

General venue idea for estafa: It is commonly filed where an essential element occurred—often where the deceit was employed and/or where the damage was suffered (e.g., where the victim sent the money and lost it). In online transactions, prosecutors often focus on the victim’s location (where the victim relied on the misrepresentation and transferred funds) and documentary proof of that transfer.

Cybercrime angle (RA 10175): Cybercrime law contemplates that offenses can be prosecuted where relevant ICT elements are situated or where elements occurred. In practice, cybercrime-capable investigators and prosecutors may become involved, especially when preservation of digital evidence, subpoenas, and platform coordination are needed.

Bottom line:

Blotter: nearest station is fine.
Case filing: you may need to file in the proper venue determined by the facts (often where you paid/where you were when deceived and suffered damage), and prosecutors may also coordinate cross-province.

4) Where Exactly to Go (Philippine Context Options)

Option 1 — Local PNP Police Station (Nearest to Victim)

Best for: quick documentation, immediate advice, referral/endorsement.

Go to the PNP station with jurisdiction over your residence/current location and ask to:

enter the incident in the police blotter, and
be referred to the investigation section for complaint processing.

What you can expect:

They’ll record your statement.
They may ask for printouts/screenshots of chats and proof of payment.
They may advise you to execute a Sinumpaang Salaysay / Complaint-Affidavit and attach evidence.

Option 2 — PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) / Cybercrime Units

Best for: cases with strong online components, need for digital evidence handling, coordination with platforms/telecom/e-wallet, multiple victims, or organized scam indicators.

You can still start locally, but ACG is often better equipped for:

preservation and handling of electronic evidence,
coordination for subscriber/account identification,
preparing requests related to IP logs and platform records,
cybercrime reporting workflows.

Option 3 — National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Cybercrime Division / Field Offices

Best for: complex cases, inter-regional coordination, larger amounts, syndicates, identity tracing, and when victims want an investigative agency approach.

NBI often requires:

a detailed affidavit,
organized documentary evidence,
identifiers (accounts, numbers, links).

Option 4 — Barangay Blotter (Not a substitute, sometimes a supplement)

Barangays keep their own blotter for local incidents and mediation. For online selling scams, barangay mediation is often not effective if:

the suspect is unknown,
the suspect is outside the barangay/municipality,
the matter is criminal and requires investigation.

Still, some victims obtain a barangay record if needed for local documentation, but it does not replace a police blotter or a prosecutor-filed complaint.

5) Cross-Province Scenarios and the Best Place to Blotter

Scenario A: Victim in Province A; Scammer claims to be in Province B (not verified)

Recommended:

Blotter at nearest PNP station in Province A (your location).
Ask for referral/endorsement to cybercrime-capable investigators (local or ACG).
If later verified, authorities can coordinate with the station in Province B.

Scenario B: Victim in Province A; Scammer’s identity/location is known and confirmed in Province B

Recommended:

Still blotter locally for immediate documentation, and
Provide the confirmed address/location so your station can coordinate or endorse.
If you are able, you may also report to the station with territorial jurisdiction in Province B (through coordination rather than personal travel, in many cases).

Scenario C: Payment made through bank/e-wallet; delivery supposed to be via courier; scam discovered after non-delivery

Recommended:

Blotter where you are (victim location), emphasizing:
- date/time of transfer,
- account details used,
- platform used,
- courier reference numbers (if any),
- proof of non-delivery / refusal / fake tracking.

Scenario D: Multiple victims across provinces; same seller account used

Recommended:

Each victim may blotter locally, but it’s usually more effective to consolidate through:
- ACG / NBI cybercrime,
- coordinated complaint submission,
- shared evidence matrix (same account numbers, usernames, pages, chats, etc.).

6) What to Bring: Evidence Checklist (Online Selling Scam)

Organize evidence chronologically and print what you can:

Identity and contact indicators

seller’s name/alias, profile link, username/handle
phone numbers, email, messaging accounts
bank/e-wallet account name and number
delivery address provided by seller (if any)
any IDs they sent (even if fake—still evidence)

Transaction proof

screenshots of the listing/product post
chat threads showing agreement, price, shipping, promises, and pressure tactics
proof of payment:
- bank transfer receipts
- e-wallet transaction screenshots
- reference numbers
courier details:
- waybill numbers
- tracking screenshots
- rider/courier messages

Damage and follow-up

evidence of non-delivery or misrepresentation (different item, empty box, counterfeit, etc.)
attempts to contact seller after payment
seller’s blocking behavior, deleted posts, page takedown indicators

Best practice for screenshots

include the URL, date/time, and full conversation context when possible
avoid cropped images that remove identifiers
keep original files (phones often preserve metadata)

7) What Happens After the Blotter: The Usual Path to a Case

Step 1: Blotter entry

This creates the official incident record.

Step 2: Execution of a Complaint-Affidavit

You will typically be asked to execute a Complaint-Affidavit (Sinumpaang Salaysay) narrating:

how you encountered the seller,
what was promised,
what you paid and when,
how you discovered the scam,
the damage suffered,
the identifiers you have.

Attach your evidence as annexes.

Step 3: Filing with the Prosecutor (Preliminary Investigation)

For estafa and many related offenses, cases usually proceed through preliminary investigation at the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, unless it’s a situation for inquest.

This is where venue questions become more important, and prosecutors may:

accept filing where elements occurred (often victim’s location/payment location),
require additional proof of identity,
assess whether the facts fit estafa and/or cybercrime-related charges.

Step 4: Subpoena and counter-affidavit process

If the complaint proceeds, respondents may be subpoenaed to answer.

Step 5: Court filing if probable cause is found

If prosecutors find probable cause, an information is filed in court.

8) Common Charges and How Online Selling Scams Fit

Estafa (RPC Article 315) — the most common

Typically applies when:

the seller used deceit (false identity, false promises, fake proof, fake tracking, non-existent goods),
the victim relied on it,
the victim paid money or delivered property,
the victim suffered damage.

Cybercrime considerations (RA 10175)

Cybercrime law can apply when the offense is committed through ICT systems, affecting:

investigative handling of electronic evidence,
potential charging strategies,
specialized units’ involvement,
court and warrant procedures for electronic data (often involving specific cybercrime warrant rules).

E-Commerce Act (RA 8792)

Often relevant as legal recognition of electronic documents/transactions and in discussions of electronic evidence, though scammers are most commonly pursued under estafa (and related provisions) as a substantive offense.

9) Special Topic: “Police Blotter” vs. “Cybercrime Warrants” and Data Requests

Victims often ask police to “track the IP” or “reveal the identity” behind accounts. In reality:

Some data requests require legal processes and cooperation from providers.
Investigators may need the appropriate legal basis and, in some circumstances, court-issued warrants or orders under cybercrime procedures.

This is why reporting to cybercrime-capable units can matter: they’re more familiar with lawful acquisition, preservation, and presentation of electronic evidence.

10) Banking and E-Wallet Coordination: Why Timing Matters

If you paid via bank/e-wallet:

report to the police quickly (blotter),
separately report to the bank/e-wallet provider to request:
- fraud tagging,
- possible freezing (where policy and timing allow),
- retrieval of account holder details through lawful processes.

Do not delay: providers often have limited windows where interventions are feasible, and scammers frequently move funds quickly.

11) Platform and Marketplace Reporting (Parallel Action)

Even while pursuing blotter/complaint:

report the seller account/page/listing to the platform used (social media, marketplace, chat app),
preserve the evidence before accounts get deleted,
keep copies of links and identifiers.

Platform reporting helps prevent further victimization but does not replace criminal procedures.

12) Practical Filing Guidance Summary (Cross-Province)

File a blotter at the nearest PNP station to you (victim’s location) for immediate documentation.
Bring organized evidence: chats, listing, payment proof, account details, and any delivery records.
Ask to be referred to the investigation section and execute a Complaint-Affidavit with attachments.
If the case is strongly online and/or cross-province (most are), coordinate with PNP ACG or NBI Cybercrime for evidence handling and inter-regional coordination.
Proceed to the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation filing in the appropriate venue based on where key elements occurred (often where you were deceived and paid/suffered damage), subject to prosecutorial assessment and any cybercrime-related venue rules applicable to the charged offense.

13) Mistakes That Weaken Scam Complaints

only blottering and never executing an affidavit
submitting cropped screenshots that remove account names/URLs/timestamps
failing to show clear proof of payment and the link to the seller
not preserving evidence early (accounts get deleted, chats disappear)
mixing facts with assumptions (stick to what you can prove; label uncertainties clearly)
paying additional “release fees,” “verification fees,” or “refund processing fees” after the scam (often a second-stage scam)

14) A Simple Outline for Your Complaint Narrative (Useful for Blotter and Affidavit)

How you found the item/seller (platform, link, date/time).
What was offered and promised (price, condition, delivery timeline).
What the seller required (deposit/full payment; mode of payment).
When and how you paid (amount, reference no., account details).
What happened after payment (non-delivery, blocking, fake tracking, refusal).
The damage you suffered (amount lost; additional expenses).
The identifiers of the suspect (accounts, numbers, names, links).
The evidence you attach (annex list).

This structure helps law enforcement and prosecutors quickly see the elements of deceit, reliance, payment, and damage.