G.R. No. 242900 - Saulo vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242900)

Applicable Law and Procedural Basis

Governing constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is 2020). Applicable statutes and rules relied on by the courts include B.P. 22 (checks without sufficient funds), Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (perjury), Section 1(a), Rule 110 and Rule 112 of the Rules of Court (institution of criminal actions and preliminary investigation), and Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) as the procedural vehicle for review before the Supreme Court.

Key Dates and Procedural History

Relevant factual dates: October–November 1996 (issuance of the BDO checks and loans), December 17, 1996 (notice of dishonor received by Saulo). Procedural chronology: Marsene Alberto filed charges (perjury and two counts under B.P. 22) in 1997; the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) convicted Saulo on April 27, 2015; the MeTC denied reconsideration on July 13, 2015; the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 268, affirmed on December 22, 2015 and denied reconsideration on September 26, 2016; the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on May 23, 2018 and denied reconsideration on October 19, 2018; the Supreme Court resolved the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the CA decision with modification as to interest.

Charges and the Informations

Three criminal informations were at issue: two separate informations charging violation of B.P. 22 for issuance of BDO Check No. 0000157580 (P12,270.00; dated October 28, 1996) and BDO Check No. 0000157581 (P29,300.00; dated November 20, 1996), respectively; and one information charging perjury for statements made in a complaint-affidavit filed by Saulo accusing Alberto of stealing and falsifying five corporate checks. The perjury information alleged that Saulo willfully and deliberately made untruthful statements under oath before a duly authorized officer.

Prosecution’s Factual Narrative

The prosecution established that Saulo borrowed money on multiple occasions and issued several checks as payment, including three checks related to a P1,500,000.00 advance and the two BDO checks for P12,270.00 and P29,300.00. The two BDO checks were presented and dishonored — one for "Account Closed" and the other for "Insufficient Funds." Alberto sent a Notice of Dishonor dated December 17, 1996, which Saulo admitted receiving. After the notices and related events, Saulo filed criminal complaints against Alberto alleging theft and falsification, and Alberto subsequently filed the present perjury and B.P. 22 cases based on the dishonored checks and Saulo’s sworn complaint-affidavit.

Defense’s Factual Narrative

Saulo denied issuing the two BDO checks payable to Alberto and maintained he had no business transactions with Alberto, Naval, or Masinag Lumber. He testified that Alberto served as Internal Auditor and Finance Officer and that she had custody and responsibility over company checks. Saulo asserted that an audit discovered the two BDO checks among missing company checks; he closed the company’s bank accounts on legal advice and filed criminal complaints against Alberto. He contended that he lacked knowledge of the specific negotiatory acts and did not willfully make false statements in the complaint-affidavit.

MeTC Findings and Judgment

The MeTC found Saulo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of violation of B.P. 22 and of perjury. For B.P. 22, the court held that all elements (issuance of the check, knowledge of insufficiency of funds, and subsequent dishonor) were established. For perjury, the MeTC concluded that Saulo (a) executed and filed a complaint-affidavit charging Alberto; (b) subscribed and swore to the affidavit before an authorized officer; (c) made material statements alleging lack of business relationship and that Alberto had unlawfully taken and filled up five checks; and (d) did so willfully and deliberately. The MeTC imposed fines and subsidiary imprisonment for B.P. 22 and sentenced Saulo to the indeterminate penalty for perjury, together with an award of monetary damages to Alberto.

RTC Rationale in Affirming the MeTC

On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MeTC’s findings in toto. The RTC emphasized motive and credibility: Saulo received the demand letter dated December 17, 1996 and thereafter filed the complaint-affidavit, which suggested a deliberate attempt to gain leverage against anticipated claims by Alberto. The RTC relied on witness Leah Celso’s testimony that she prepared and released the subject checks (supported by vouchers signed by Celso, Alberto, and Saulo) and that she was present and able to identify how the checks were issued and released. The RTC found Saulo’s failure to verify the checks’ status with Celso, despite being able to do so, to be inconsistent with an innocent or inadvertent misstatement, supporting a finding of willful falsehood.

Court of Appeals’ Disposition

The CA confined its review principally to the perjury conviction (noting that Saulo did not raise his B.P. 22 convictions in the petition before the CA). The CA concluded that the elements of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code were all present: a sworn statement on a material matter; administration of oath by a competent officer; a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and a sworn statement required by law for instituting criminal action. The CA gave weight to the MeTC’s factual findings, particularly witness Celso’s testimony and documentary evidence (the original checks), and affirmed the perjury conviction.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Scope of Review

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, reiterating the limited role of this Court to errors of law committed by the CA. The Court accorded conclusive weight to the trial courts’ factual findings and credibility assessments, especially because the perjury issue turned on credibility and factual determinations — matters ordinarily beyond the proper scope of Rule 45 review. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the MeTC, RTC, and CA findings that Saulo willfully and deliberately made false statements under oath and that the elements of perjury were present.

Elements of Perjury and B.P. 22 as Applied

Perjury (Article 183 RPC): The courts applied the four elements — (1) the accused made a statement under oath on a material matter; (2) the oath was administered by a competent officer; (3) the statement contained a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood (requiring knowledge of falsity or conscious ignorance and intent that the statement be received as true); and (4) the statement was required by law or made for a legal purpose. B.P. 22: The elements applied were (1) making, drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge at the time of issue that there were insufficient funds or credit; and (3) subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit (or would have been dishonored absent a stop-payment). The courts found all elements for both offenses established on the evidence.

Evidentiary Basis, Credibility, and Presumptions

Tangible documentary evidence included the two original BDO checks (Nos. 0000157580 and 0000157581) and the Notice of Dishonor dated December 17, 1996. Witness Leah Celso’s testimony, describing that she personally prepared the checks “payable to cash”, released them, and supported the transactions with vouchers signed by Celso, Alberto, and Saulo, was treated

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 242900)

Case Caption, Citation and Nature of Proceeding

G.R. No. 242900, June 08, 2020; reported at 873 Phil. 630, First Division.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by petitioner Edwin L. Saulo (Saulo) seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated May 23, 2018 and Resolution dated October 19, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39251.
The CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 268 Decision dated December 22, 2015 and Order dated September 26, 2016, which in turn affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 71, Pasig City Decision dated April 27, 2015 and its Resolution dated July 13, 2015.
Crimes charged and for which petitioner was convicted: two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) (dishonored checks) and Perjury.

Antecedent Facts — Prosecution Version

Petitioner Saulo owned Yadoo Dynasty and Khumbmela Products, Inc. (Khumbmela), manufacturers of bags, backpacks and accessories.
Saulo employed Marsene Alberto (Alberto) from 1992–1996 as Disbursing Officer, later promoted to Operations Manager at Khumbmela and subsequently at Yadoo Dynasty.
Saulo experienced financial problems and sought Alberto’s assistance to find lenders.
Alberto asked her husband, Amando V. Alberto, to approach Eladio Naval, who lent Saulo P1,500,000.00. Upon receipt, Saulo allegedly issued and signed three checks with face values: P1,200,000.00; P200,000.00; and P100,000.00.
In October 1996, Saulo allegedly borrowed P12,270.00 from Alberto and issued Banco De Oro (BDO) Check No. 0000157580 dated October 28, 1996 drawn against Khumbmela’s account as payment.
In November 1996, Alberto and her husband assisted materials procurement from Masinag Lumber; Saulo allegedly issued BDO Check No. 0000157581 dated November 20, 1996 in the amount of P29,300.00 under Khumbmela’s account (Alberto’s husband had initially issued his personal check to Masinag Lumber).
When presented for payment, BDO Check No. 0000157580 was dishonored (reason indicated: “Account Closed”) and BDO Check No. 0000157581 was dishonored (reason indicated: “Insufficient Funds”).
Alberto sent Saulo a Notice of Dishonor dated December 17, 1996, received by Saulo the same day.
To Alberto’s surprise, Saulo filed an Estafa complaint-affidavit against her alleging that she stole and falsified five checks (including the two BDO checks). That Estafa complaint was dismissed on reconsideration.
Saulo also filed separate cases for Qualified Theft and Falsification of Commercial Documents against Alberto before the City Prosecutor; both were dismissed for insufficient evidence.
After those dismissals, Alberto filed criminal complaints against Saulo: (a) Perjury (MeTC Criminal Case No. 31929, filed September 22, 1997) based on alleged untruthful statements in Saulo’s complaint-affidavit; and (b) two separate Informations for Violation of B.P. 22 (Crim. Cases Nos. 33348 and 33349, filed October 24, 1997) concerning BDO Check Nos. 157580 (P12,270.00; dated October 28, 1996) and 157581 (P29,300.00; dated November 20, 1996), respectively.

Antecedent Facts — Defense Version

Saulo testified he hired Alberto in 1992 as Internal Auditor and Finance Officer at Khumbmela; she handled receivables and payables.
He denied issuing the two BDO checks in favor of the spouses Alberto, asserting he had no loan obligation with them, no business dealings with Masinag Lumber, and no knowledge of issuance or negotiation of those checks.
Saulo claimed his company accepted rediscounting only for checks issued by Robinsons and Shoemart and that Khumbmela did not rediscount its own checks.
An audit in 1997 reportedly revealed the two BDO checks among missing checks; Saulo contended Alberto did not return to work after audit and he suspected her as the culprit.
Saulo could not produce the Audit Report, asserting it was destroyed by flooding caused by Typhoon Ondoy.
Following discovery of missing checks and advice of counsel, Saulo closed Khumbmela’s accounts with Allied Bank and BDO.
He received Alberto’s demand letter dated December 17, 1996 and, in response, his counsel demanded return of the five missing checks; Saulo subsequently filed a qualified theft complaint against Alberto and affirmed the statements in his complaint-affidavit.
At arraignment Saulo pleaded not guilty.
At preliminary conference the parties stipulated to certain facts including: the sequence of filings; that the Estafa information from the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City preceded the perjury case; that Alberto was an employee of Khumbmela; and that Alberto filed a leave of absence around October 18, 1996.

Charges, Accusatory Allegations and Legal Elements Alleged

Perjury (MeTC Criminal Case No. 31929) — accusatory portion alleged that in or about January 1997 in Pasig City, Saulo willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly made untruthful statements in a Complaint-Affidavit subscribed and sworn before 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor Philip Labastida; material allegations included:
- Denial of any business relationship with the spouses Alberto;
- Assertion that audit revealed unauthorized check payments made to “cash” and that certain checks were missing, including specified Allied Bank and BDO checks;
- Allegation that he referred the matter to his lawyer and closed company bank accounts;
- Assertion that Alberto abused trust by surreptitiously taking five checks and filling them up to defraud Khumbmela;
- The Information alleges Saulo knew these assertions were false and were made with criminal intent, contrary to law.
Violation of B.P. 22 (Crim. Case No. 33348 — Check No. 157580; Crim. Case No. 33349 — Check No. 157581) — accusatory allegations (October 24, 1997) included:
- That Saulo made, drew and issued checks to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue he did not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank for payment in full upon presentment;
- That the checks, presented for payment within 90 days from date, were dishonored for reasons “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” or “Account Closed”;
- That despite receipt of notice of dishonor, the accused failed to pay the payee the face amount or make arrangement for full payment within five banking days after receiving notice.
Legal elements (as articulated in the decision):
- Perjury under Article 183, RPC: (a) statement under oath or affidavit on material matter; (b) made before competent officer authorized to administer oath; (c) willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; (d) sworn statement required by law or made for legal purpose.
- Violation of B.P. 22 (Sec. 1): (1) making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge at time of issue of insufficient funds or credit; (3) subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or would have been dishonored had not payment been stopped without valid reason.
- Corporate-drawer rule: where check drawn by corporation, the person(s) who actually signed on behalf of the dra