Balsamo vs. People

The use of physical force against an agent of a person in authority constitutes direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code only when the force employed is serious; if the force is not serious, the offense is only resistance or disobedience under Article 151. A sudden blow, slapping, or punching, without more, does not suffice.

Rochard Balsamo and Dexter Cris Adalim were neighbors in Purok Santan B, San Jose District, Pagadian City. PO3 Policarpio Adalim III, Dexter’s brother, was assigned at the Police Intelligence Branch Office, Camp Abelon, Pagadian City. The statutory backdrop is the Revised Penal Code’s distinction between direct assault under Article 148 and resistance or disobedience under Article 151, with Article 152 defining persons in authority and their agents.

On February 10, 2016, at about 4:30 p.m., Dexter Cris Adalim contacted his brother PO3 Policarpio Adalim III, who was assigned at the Police Intelligence Branch Office, Camp Abelon, Pagadian City. Dexter told PO3 Adalim that he was hiding in their house at Purok Santan B, San Jose District after their drunk neighbor Rochard Balsamo punched him and threatened to shoot him. PO3 Adalim immediately reported the incident to the police station and responded together with PO1 Gerome Tare. At that time, both officers were in civilian clothes because members of the Intelligence Branch are not required to be in uniform except during inspections.

Upon arrival at Purok Santan B, PO3 Adalim saw Rochard about to charge at Dexter. PO3 Adalim shouted to stop Rochard and introduced himself as a police officer. Rochard ran toward his house. PO3 Adalim chased him and was able to hold his right arm. Rochard punched PO3 Adalim in the chest. Rochard then entered his house and slammed the gate shut, which hit PO3 Adalim’s right upper arm and caught his four fingers. PO3 Adalim sustained slight abrasions and swollen fingers. Thereafter, Bernardo Bayoyo helped PO3 Adalim convince Rochard to come out of the house, and minutes later Rochard surrendered himself to the authorities.

Rochard was charged with direct assault before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The information alleged that on February 10, 2016, at around 4:30 p.m., at Purok Santan B, San Jose District, Pagadian City, Rochard willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked and boxed PO3 Policarpio Adalim III, hitting his chest and injuring his fingers, knowing that PO3 Adalim was a member of the Philippine National Police, Pagadian City, and that the officer was actually engaged in the performance of his duties, in violation of Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code.

Rochard denied the accusation. According to him, at 4:30 p.m. on February 10, 2016, he went out of the house to get his motorcycle to fetch his children from school. Dexter approached and stared at him. Suddenly, Bernardo held him tightly while Dexter punched him. Rochard asked help from his cousin Christopher Balsamo, who pacified the commotion. Rochard reported the matter to the barangay and returned home. Thereafter, he went outside but sensed danger when two armed men in civilian clothes approached him. He hurriedly ran back to his house and locked the gate. The two men forcibly opened the gate and mauled him, causing abrasions and bruises on his face. They dragged him out of the house and beat him again, and Dexter and Bernardo joined the fray. Later, Rochard was arrested and brought to the police station, where he learned that the armed men were police officers.

The MTCC and the RTC found that PO3 Adalim had identified himself as a police officer, that Rochard fled and punched him in the chest when his arm was held, and that the gate slammed on PO3 Adalim’s fingers, causing slight abrasions and swollen fingers. Both courts also found that Rochard was aware that PO3 Adalim was a police officer and that there was no public uprising. The CA affirmed these findings.

• Nature of Force: Petitioner argued that he is only liable for resistance or disobedience under Article 151, not direct assault under Article 148, because PO3 Adalim’s injuries are not of a serious nature.
• Lack of Intent to Defy Authority: Petitioner maintained that he was merely evading arrest without intention to defy the authority of PO3 Adalim.
• Lack of Knowledge and Criminal Intent: Petitioner reiterated that he was not aware PO3 Adalim was a police officer since the latter was in civilian clothes, and that he had no criminal intent when he punched and injured PO3 Adalim.

• Intentional Use of Force: Respondent countered that Rochard committed direct assault because he intentionally used force and injured PO3 Adalim while the latter was performing his duties as a police officer.

• Nature of Force: Whether Rochard’s act of punching PO3 Adalim in the chest and causing the gate to injure the officer’s fingers constituted serious force sufficient to establish direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, or only resistance or disobedience under Article 151.
• Proper Offense and Penalty: Whether Rochard may be convicted of resistance to an agent of a person in authority and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

• Nature of Force: No. The force employed was not serious; direct assault requires serious force, and Rochard’s acts—punching to free himself and evade arrest and accidentally slamming the gate—were not dangerous, grave, or severe. The offense is only resistance or disobedience under Article 151.
• Proper Offense and Penalty: Yes. Rochard is guilty of resistance to an agent of a person in authority. Article 151 imposes arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP 500.00; the Court imposed three months of arresto mayor and a PHP 500.00 fine, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law inapplicable because the maximum term does not exceed one year.

• Nature of Force: Direct assault is a crime against public order, penalizing the spirit of lawlessness or lack of respect for the rule of law. It may be committed in two modes; Rochard was charged under the second mode, which requires: (1) an attack, employment of force, serious intimidation, or serious resistance; (2) the person assaulted is a person in authority or their agent; (3) at the time of the assault, the person in authority or agent is engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or is assaulted by reason of past performance; (4) the offender knows that the person assaulted is a person in authority or agent in the exercise of duties; and (5) there is no public uprising. The prosecution established the second, third, fourth, and fifth elements: PO3 Adalim was a police officer and thus an agent of a person in authority under Article 152; he was engaged in the actual performance of his duties when he responded to investigate the alleged threats against his brother and to apprehend the culprit; Rochard knew of PO3 Adalim’s authority because the officer introduced himself as a police officer; and there was no public uprising. The controversy was the first element. The use of physical force against an agent of a person in authority in direct assault must be serious; otherwise, the crime is only resistance or disobedience under Article 151. The distinction lies largely in the amount of force employed, and the gravity of the disobedience is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it, and the real importance of the transgression. Previous direct assault cases involved more severe force: in United States vs. Cox, the accused seized the police officer by the throat, threw him to the ground, and struck him with a club; in Rivera vs. People, the accused hurled menacing threats, challenged the officer to a fight, punched him on the lip, and was subdued only with the help of other officers. In People vs. Breis, the laying of hands or use of physical force not serious in nature was held to constitute resistance or disobedience, not direct assault; the pushing of IO1 Mangili was not serious defiance. In Mallari vs. People, grabbing the shirt of PO2 Navarro and slapping and kicking him several times was not serious enough for direct assault. Here, PO3 Adalim chased Rochard and grabbed his right arm; Rochard punched him in the chest to free himself and evade arrest, not to assault him or defy his authority; Rochard blindly slammed the gate while running away without knowing it hit PO3 Adalim’s arm and fingers; PO3 Adalim sustained only slight abrasions and swollen fingers; and PO3 Adalim was able to run after Rochard punched him and withstand the pain from his injured fingers. Taken together, the circumstances, motive, and real importance of the transgression show that Rochard’s use of force was not dangerous, grave, or severe. The force involved in direct assault must be serious or more than a sudden blow, slapping, or punching. Thus, direct assault was not established, but resistance or disobedience was proved because direct assault necessarily includes resistance or disobedience.
• Proper Offense and Penalty: Under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding PHP 500.00 shall be imposed upon any person who, not being liable for direct assault or indirect assault, shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties. If the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from PHP 10.00 to PHP 100.00 shall be imposed. The Court found Rochard guilty of resistance to an agent of a person in authority considering the particular conditions under which the felony was committed. It imposed a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and a fine of PHP 500.00. The Indeterminate Sentence Law was inapplicable because the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.

• Direct Assault vs. Resistance or Disobedience — Direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code requires serious force against a person in authority or their agent. If the physical force employed is not serious, the offense is not direct assault but resistance or disobedience under Article 151. The gravity of the disobedience is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it, and the real importance of the transgression. In this case, Rochard’s punch to the chest to evade arrest and the accidental gate injury were not serious, so the conviction was modified to resistance.
• Elements of Direct Assault (Second Mode) — The second mode of direct assault has five elements: (1) the offender makes an attack, employs force, makes a serious intimidation, or makes a serious resistance; (2) the person assaulted is a person in authority or their agent; (3) at the time of the assault, the person in authority or agent is engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or is assaulted by reason of past performance; (4) the offender knows that the person assaulted is a person in authority or agent in the exercise of duties; and (5) there is no public uprising. The prosecution established all elements except the first, because the force was not serious.
• Direct Assault Necessarily Includes Resistance or Disobedience — Although the charge was direct assault, the prosecution proved the lesser offense of resistance or disobedience. Direct assault necessarily includes resistance or disobedience, and the variance concerns only the degree of seriousness of the offender’s resistance. This allowed conviction under Article 151.
• Agent of a Person in Authority — Under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, a police officer is an agent of a person in authority. PO3 Adalim, as a police officer charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, was an agent of a person in authority; he was also engaged in the actual performance of his duties when he responded to investigate the alleged threats and apprehend the culprit.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law Inapplicability — The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. Because the penalty for the modified offense did not exceed one year, the Court imposed a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and a PHP 500.00 fine.

• "The use of physical force against the agent of a person in authority in direct assault must be serious. Otherwise, the crime is only resistance or disobedience defined under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code" — States the controlling rule distinguishing direct assault from resistance or disobedience based on the seriousness of the force employed.
• "The gravity of the disobedience to an order of a person in authority or his agent is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it and the real importance of the transgression, rather than the source of the order disobeyed." — Provides the canonical formulation for measuring whether resistance or disobedience is serious enough to constitute direct assault.
• "Here, the facts show that PO3 Adalim chased Rochard and grabbed his right arm. Rochard punched PO3 Adalim in the chest in order to free himself and evade arrest. The act is done not to assault PO3 Adalim or to defy his authority. Rochard blindly slammed the gate while running away without knowing that it hit PO3 Adalim's arm and fingers. More telling is that PO3 Adalim sustained slight abrasions and swollen fingers. Also, PO3 Adalim was able to run after Rochard punched him in the chest, and withstand the pain from his injured fingers. Taken together, the circumstances surrounding the act, the motive prompting it, and the real importance of the transgression reveal that Rochard's use of force against PO3 Adalim is not dangerous, grave, or severe." — Applies the rule to the facts and explains why the force was not serious enough for direct assault.
• "Direct assault necessarily includes resistance or disobedience." — Supports the modification of the conviction to the lesser offense under Article 151 despite the charge of direct assault.

• People vs. Breis, 766 Phil. 783, 811 (2015) — Relied on for the rule that the laying of hands or use of physical force against agents of persons in authority, when not serious, constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151, not direct assault under Article 148.
• Mallari vs. People, 870 Phil. 687 (2020) — Cited as an example where grabbing a police officer’s shirt and slapping and kicking him several times was not serious enough to constitute direct assault; the Court applied the same standard to Rochard’s acts.
• Rafols, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 248730, July 14, 2021 — Cited for the elements of direct assault under the second mode.
• United States vs. Gumban — Cited for the rule that the amount of force employed against agents of persons in authority spells the difference between direct assault and resistance or disobedience. (Citation not provided in the case text.)
• United States vs. Taolana, 37 Phil. 515 (1918) — Cited as observing the doctrine that the classification of the offense depends on the gravity of the act and the circumstances of its commission.

• Article 148, Revised Penal Code — Defines direct assault and its two modes. The Court applied the second mode, which requires serious force; because Rochard’s force was not serious, direct assault was not established.
• Article 151, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes resistance or serious disobedience to a person in authority or their agents while engaged in official duties. The Court applied this provision to convict Rochard of resistance to an agent of a person in authority and imposed arresto mayor and a PHP 500.00 fine.
• Article 152, Revised Penal Code — Defines persons in authority and their agents. The Court applied it to hold that PO3 Adalim, a police officer, was an agent of a person in authority.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — The Court held it inapplicable because the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, and imposed a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and a PHP 500.00 fine.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.