Saulo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edwin L. Saulo, owner of Yadoo Dynasty and Khumbmela Products, Inc., hired private respondent Marsene Alberto. Saulo borrowed money from various sources, issuing checks as payment. Specifically, Saulo borrowed P1,500,000.00, issuing three checks. He also borrowed P12,270.00 and P29,300.00 from Alberto, issuing BDO Check Nos. 0000157580 and 0000157581, respectively, drawn against Khumbmela's account. These checks were dishonored for "Account Closed" and "Insufficient Funds." Alberto sent Saulo a Notice of Dishonor. Subsequently, Saulo filed Estafa, Qualified Theft, and Falsification cases against Alberto, alleging she stole five checks and falsified them. These cases were dismissed. Based on these dismissals, Alberto filed cases for Perjury and two counts of Violation of B.P. 22 against Saulo. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) convicted Saulo for two counts of Violation of B.P. 22 and Perjury. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the RTC's ruling, focusing on the Perjury conviction as the B.P. 22 conviction was not raised as an issue in Saulo's petition for review before the CA. The Petition: Saulo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising issues on whether there was deliberate assertion of falsehood for the Perjury charge and whether he could be convicted for Violation of B.P. 22.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Edwin L. Saulo committed Perjury by making a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in his Complaint-Affidavit. Whether petitioner Edwin L. Saulo is guilty of two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. The conviction of Edwin L. Saulo for two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and for Perjury was upheld. The Court modified the interest rate on the monetary award.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Perjury: The Court held that all elements of perjury were present. The Complaint-Affidavit executed by Saulo was a sworn statement on a material matter before a competent officer. The Court found that Saulo made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood when he claimed he had no business relationship with Alberto and that she stole checks, when evidence showed he borrowed money from her and issued checks as payment. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of the trial courts, affirmed by the CA, regarding the credibility of witnesses and the deliberate assertion of falsehood are binding on the Supreme Court. The testimony of witness Celso, who prepared the checks, corroborated Alberto's claims and was found to be credible and disinterested. On the issue of Violation of B.P. 22: The Court found that all three essential elements for a violation of B.P. 22 were present. The issuance of the two checks (BDO Check Nos. 0000157580 and 0000157581) for P12,270.00 and P29,300.00, respectively, was undisputed. These checks were dishonored for "Account Closed" and "Drawn against Insufficient Funds." The Court noted that Saulo failed to rebut the statutory presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds, especially since he received the notice of dishonor and failed to pay or make arrangements for payment within five days. The Court also reiterated that when a corporate officer issues a worthless check in the corporate name, he may be held personally liable, and Saulo, as President, signed the checks in question.
Main Doctrine
The elements of perjury are: (a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. For violation of B.P. 22, the essential elements are: (1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit.