Title
Rochard Balsamo y Dominguez vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 260109
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2023
A drunk neighbor punched and injured a plainclothes police officer during a confrontation, leading to a downgraded charge of resistance and disobedience due to lack of serious force.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-7311)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

• February 10, 2016: Incident wherein petitioner resisted and used force against PO3 Adalim.
• May 4, 2020: Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) convicts petitioner of direct assault (Article 148, RPC).
• December 29, 2020: Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirms MTCC decision.
• November 11, 2021: Court of Appeals (CA) affirms RTC, holding all elements of direct assault proven.
• April 12, 2023: Supreme Court pronounces final decision.

Applicable Law (1987 Constitution)

  • Article 148, Revised Penal Code: Direct Assault.
  • Article 151, Revised Penal Code: Resistance or Disobedience to Persons in Authority.
  • Article 152, Revised Penal Code: Definition of agents of persons in authority.
  • Indeterminate Sentence Law: Considered but inapplicable as maximum term does not exceed one year.

Facts of the Case

Petitioner’s neighbor, Dexter Cris Adalim, reported that petitioner, allegedly drunk, threatened and punched him. PO3 Adalim and PO1 Tare, in civilian attire, responded to a call for assistance. Upon arrival, PO3 Adalim identified himself as a police officer and ordered petitioner to desist from assaulting Dexter. Petitioner fled toward his house; PO3 Adalim pursued and momentarily grasped petitioner’s right arm. Petitioner punched PO3 Adalim’s chest and, while shutting his gate to evade arrest, caught and injured the officer’s four fingers. Injuries were slight abrasions and swelling. Petitioner ultimately surrendered.

Procedural History

Petitioner was charged with direct assault under Article 148, RPC, for attacking an agent of authority engaged in official duties. At trial and on subsequent appeals to the RTC and CA, evidence that petitioner knew the victim was a police officer, that the officer introduced himself, and that there was no public uprising led each court below to affirm petitioner’s guilt for direct assault.

Issue

Whether the force exerted by petitioner against PO3 Adalim was sufficiently serious to constitute direct assault (Art. 148, RPC), or only resistance or disobedience (Art. 151, RPC).

Legal Analysis

Direct assault under the second mode of Article 148, RPC, requires:

  1. An attack, employment of force, serious intimidation, or resistance;
  2. The victim is a person in authority or agent;
  3. The victim is performing official duties;
  4. The offender knows the victim’s official character; and
  5. No public uprising.

Elements 2–5 were undisputed: PO3 Adalim and PO1 Tare were agents of authority (Art. 152, RPC), performing official duties, introduced themselves, and there was no public uprising. The sole dispute concerned the first element—whether petitioner’s punching and inadvertent gate-slamming constituted “serious” employment of force. Jurisprudence distinguishes direct assault from mere resistance by the gravity of force: isolated blows, slaps, or sudden resistance typically fall under Article 151. Cases such as People v. Breis and United States v. Gumban instruct that only force “dangerous, grave, or severe” qualifies as direct assault. Here, petitioner’s chest punch and incidental finger injury from the gate caused only slight abrasions and swelling; the officer continued the pursuit unimpeded. The motive was evasion of arrest, not a deliberate assault on authority. Acc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.