G.R. No. 242900, June 08, 2020
EDWIN L. SAULO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARSENE ALBERTO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Edwin L. Saulo was the owner/president of Khumbmela Products, Inc. He hired private respondent Marsene Alberto as an employee. In October 1996, Saulo borrowed P12,270.00 from Alberto and issued BDO Check No. 0000157580 dated October 28, 1996, drawn against Khumbmela’s account, as payment. Also in October 1996, Saulo sought the help of Alberto and her husband to obtain construction materials from Masinag Lumber. Alberto’s husband issued his personal check to the lumberyard, and in turn, Saulo issued BDO Check No. 0000157581 dated November 20, 1996, for P29,300.00, drawn against Khumbmela’s account. When presented for payment, both checks were dishonored: the first for “Account Closed” and the second for “Insufficient Funds.” Alberto sent Saulo a Notice of Dishonor on December 17, 1996, which he received.
Subsequently, Saulo filed criminal complaints (Estafa, Qualified Theft, and Falsification) against Alberto before the Pasig City Prosecutor, alleging she stole and falsified five checks, including the two BDO checks. These cases were dismissed. Alberto then filed a Perjury case and two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) against Saulo before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The Perjury charge was based on Saulo’s sworn complaint-affidavit containing false statements, including that he had no business relationship with the Albertos and that the checks were stolen. The B.P. 22 charges were based on the two dishonored checks.
The MeTC convicted Saulo on all counts. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction on appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise affirmed the RTC’s decision. Saulo elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Saulo’s conviction for Perjury and two counts of Violation of B.P. 22.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision with modification regarding the imposed interest.
1. On the Perjury Conviction: The Court upheld the conviction. All elements of perjury were present: Saulo executed a sworn complaint-affidavit before a competent officer; the statements therein (that he had no business relationship with the Albertos and that the checks were stolen) were willful and deliberate assertions of falsehood; and the false statements were material, as they were the very basis for filing the criminal complaints against Alberto. The Court found Saulo’s denial of issuing the checks and having a loan obligation unpersuasive, as it was contradicted by the prosecution’s evidence and his own admission of receiving the Notice of Dishonor. His claim that the checks were stolen was belied by the fact that he issued them to settle his debts.
2. On the B.P. 22 Convictions: The Court also upheld the convictions. The elements of B.P. 22 were established: Saulo made, drew, and issued the two checks to Alberto; the checks were dishonored upon presentment for the reasons “Account Closed” and “Insufficient Funds”; and Saulo received notice of dishonor but failed to pay the amount or make arrangements for payment within five banking days. The Court rejected Saulo’s defense that the checks were corporate and he should not be held personally liable. As the president who signed the checks, he cannot shield himself from personal liability for issuing checks without sufficient funds.
3. On Penalty and Interest: The Court modified the interest imposed on the monetary award (P41,570.00, the total face value of the checks). Following Nacar v. Gallery Frames, the amount shall earn interest at 12% per annum from the filing of the Informations on October 24, 1997, until June 30, 2013, and at 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision. The total amount shall further earn interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.