Perjury and Bouncing Checks in the Philippines: What Saulo v. People Teaches

The Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Saulo v. People (G.R. No. 242900) offers a clear lesson for business owners and individuals alike: lying under oath and issuing worthless checks carry serious criminal consequences. The case consolidates two familiar areas of Philippine criminal law—perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code and the crime of issuing bouncing checks under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22). The decision affirms that both offenses can be prosecuted together, and that corporate officers cannot hide behind their companies when they sign bad checks.

The Facts of the Case

Edwin Saulo owned a manufacturing company and hired Marsene Alberto as an employee. Over time, Saulo borrowed money from Alberto and her husband, issuing several checks as payment. Two of those checks—one for P12,270.00 and another for P29,300.00—were dishonored when presented for payment. The first was returned for "Account Closed," and the second for "Insufficient Funds." Alberto sent Saulo a notice of dishonor, which he received.

Instead of paying, Saulo filed criminal complaints against Alberto, accusing her of theft and falsification of checks. In his complaint-affidavit, he swore that he had no business relationship with Alberto and that she stole the checks. Those cases were dismissed for lack of evidence. Alberto then filed her own cases against Saulo: two counts of violating B.P. 22 for the dishonored checks, and one count of perjury for the false statements in his complaint-affidavit.

The Elements of Perjury

The Court explained that perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code requires four elements: (1) making a statement under oath or executing an affidavit on a material matter; (2) doing so before a competent officer authorized to administer oaths; (3) willfully and deliberately asserting a falsehood; and (4) the sworn statement being required by law or made for a legal purpose.

All four elements were present. Saulo executed a complaint-affidavit before a prosecutor, an officer authorized to administer oaths. His statements—particularly that he had no business dealings with Alberto—were material because they could influence the prosecutor's determination of probable cause. The prosecution proved these statements were false. Saulo had indeed borrowed money and issued checks to Alberto, and his own employee testified that she prepared and released the checks with Saulo's signature.

The Court stressed that "material matter" is judged by potentiality, not probability. The prosecution need not prove the false statement actually influenced the case—only that it could have.

The B.P. 22 Violations

B.P. 22 punishes any person who makes, draws, and issues a check for value, knowing at the time of issue that there are insufficient funds in the bank, and the check is subsequently dishonored. The Court reiterated the three essential elements: (1) issuance of the check; (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance; and (3) subsequent dishonor.

In this case, the first and third elements were undisputed. The checks were presented and dishonored within 90 days. The second element was established through a statutory presumption: when a check is dishonored and the drawer fails to pay within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor, knowledge of insufficient funds is presumed. Saulo received the notice but did not pay.

Corporate Officers Are Personally Liable

A key point in the ruling: Saulo argued the checks were corporate checks, not his personal ones. The Court rejected this defense. B.P. 22 expressly provides that when a check is drawn by a corporation, the person who actually signed the check is liable. A corporate officer cannot shield himself from criminal liability by claiming the act was corporate. Since Saulo signed the checks as president of the company, he was personally responsible.

The Interest Modification

The Court modified the lower courts' ruling on interest. Applying the Nacar v. Gallery Frames doctrine, the monetary award of P41,570.00 was ordered to earn 12% interest per annum from the filing of the Information on October 24, 1997 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of judgment. After finality, the total amount earns 6% interest per annum until fully paid.

Practical Takeaways

• Never lie under oath. A complaint-affidavit is a sworn statement made for a legal purpose. False statements in it—even about collateral matters—can lead to a perjury conviction.
• A bounced check is a crime by itself. Under B.P. 22, the mere issuance of a worthless check is the offense. There is no need to prove intent to defraud beyond the statutory elements.
• The five-day rule is critical. After receiving a notice of dishonor, a drawer has five banking days to pay the check or arrange for payment. Failure to do so triggers the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds.
• Corporate officers cannot hide behind their companies. Signing a check for a corporation does not immunize the signer from personal criminal liability under B.P. 22.
• Factual findings of trial courts are highly respected. The Supreme Court will not re-examine credibility findings on appeal unless there is a clear misapplication of facts or law.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.