SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 260109. April 12, 2023.]

ROCHARD BALSAMO y DOMINGUEZ,petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.

DECISION

M.V. LOPEZ, J : p

The question of whether the crime is direct assault or resistance and

disobedience to persons in authority or their agents depends on the gravity of
the act proved and the particular conditions under which it is committed. The
courts must consider the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the
offender, the motives prompting it, and the real importance of the transgression.
1 We observe this doctrine in this Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 assailing
the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 3 dated November 11, 2021 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 10207-MIN. HTcADC

ANTECEDENTS
On February 10, 2016 at 4:30 p.m.,Dexter Cris Adalim (Dexter) contacted
his brother Police Officer 3 Policarpio Adalim III (PO3 Adalim) who was
assigned at the Police Intelligence Branch Office, Camp Abelon in 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 (Rochard)
punched and threatened to shoot him. Immediately, PO3 Adalim reported the
incident to the police station and responded together with Police Officer 1
Gerome Tare (PO1 Tare).At that time, PO3 Adalim and PO1 Tare were in
civilian clothes since 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. But Rochard ran to the
direction of his house. PO3 Adalim ran after Rochard and was able to get hold
of his right arm. However, Rochard punched PO3 Adalim in his 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 (Bernardo) helped PO3
Adalim convince Rochard to come out of the house. Minutes later, Rochard
surrendered himself to the authorities. 4 Accordingly, Rochard was charged with
direct assault before the Municipal Trial Court, in Cities (MTCC),to wit:
That on the 10th day of February 2016, at around 4:30 o'clock
[sic] in the afternoon, more or less, at Purok Santan B, San Jose District,
Pagadian City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack and boxed hitting the chest and injuring the fingers
of PO3 POLICARPIO ADALIM III, a member of Philippine National
Police, Pagadian City, which fact is known to the accused, on the
accusation when the said police officer was actually engaged in the
performance of his duties, in violation of Article 148 of the Revised Penal
Code. CAIHTE

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Rochard denied the accusation and claimed that on February 10, 2016
at 4:30 p.m.,he went out of the house to get his motorcycle to fetch his children
from school. However, Dexter approached and stared at him. Suddenly,
Bernardo held him tightly while Dexter punched him. Rochard asked help from
his cousin Christopher Balsamo (Christopher) who pacified the commotion.
Rochard reported the matter to the barangay and returned home. Thereafter,
Rochard went outside but he sensed danger when two armed men in civilian
clothes approached him. Rochard hurriedly ran back to his house and locked
the gate. The two men forcibly opened the gate and mauled Rochard who
sustained abrasions and bruises on his face. The two men dragged Rochard
out of the house and beat him again. Dexter and Bernardo joined the fray. Later,
Rochard was arrested and brought to the police station where he learned the
identity of the armed men as police officers. 6
On May 4, 2020, the MTCC found Rochard guilty of direct assault
committed against PO3 Adalim. The MTCC rejected Rochard's defense that he
has no knowledge that PO3 Adalim is a police officer, 7 thus:
The evidence of the prosecution proves that PO3 Policarpio S.
Adalim III is a member of the Philippine National Police assigned at
Provincial Intelligence Branch, Camp Abelon, Pagadian City. Thus, he
is an agent of person in authority pursuant to Art. 152 of the Revised
Penal Code. On February 10, 2016 around 4:30 o'clock [sic] in the
afternoon, PO3 Policarpio S. Adalim III together with PO1 Gerome Tare
responded to the call of his brother Dexter Cris S. Adalim asking him for
an assistance at Purok Santan B, San Jose District, Pagadian City
because he was in trouble with his neighbor and the latter threatened
him to be killed. Thus, when PO3 Policarpio S. Adalim III responded to
the call for assistance from his brother, he was engaged in the
performance of his duty as a police officer.
 Upon arrival at the reported place of incident, PO3 Adalim III and
PO1 Tare saw the accused and Dexter Cris Adalim were about to charge
each other again. PO3 Adalim III then shouted to the accused and
Dexter Cris Adalim to stop the fight, and they are police officers. Upon
seeing the arrival of PO3 Adalim III and PO1 Tare, and upon hearing the
announcement of the former, accused hurriedly run towards his house;
PO3 Adalim chased the accused while PO1 Tare hold [sic] Dexter Cris
Adalim. When PO3 Adalim III was able to hold the right arm of the
accused, the latter punched the chest of the former, and upon reaching
the gate, accused quickly closed it injuring the fingers of police officer
Adalim III after his fingers were caught with the metal of the gate. x x x
Thus, accused makes an attack, employ force [sic],or makes a serious
resistance unto police officer Policarpo [sic] S. Adalim III but there is no
public uprising. x x x
The denial of the accused that he does not know PO3
Policarpio S. Adalim and PO1 Gerome Tare as police officers
cannot prevail over the positive declaration of PO3 Adalim III and
PO1 Tare that police officer Adalim III identified themselves as
police officers when they arrived at the place of incident. In fact,
the declaration of police officer Adalim III that they are police
officers was loud and clear as testified by the witnesses of the
Prosecution. aScITE

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, finding Rochard D. Balsamo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Assault defined and penalized
under Art. 148 of the Revised Penal Code, this Court hereby rendered
judgment convincing him of the said offense, and he is sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of
arresto mayor,as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month of prision
correccional,as maximum, imprisonment. He is likewise ordered to pay
a fine of [FIVE HUNDRED PESOS] ([PHP500.00]) and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. 8
Rochard appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and reiterated that
he was not aware that PO3 Adalim was a police officer since he was in civilian
clothes. Moreover, Rochard alleged that he had no criminal intent when he
punched and injured PO3 Adalim. On December 29, 2020, the RTC affirmed
the MTCC's findings that Rochard was guilty of direct assault and pointed out
that PO3 Adalim was performing his duty to investigate a crime when the
assault happened, 9 viz.:
x x x Accused-appellant's self-serving declaration that he did not
know then that private complainant was a police officer is
untenable. Private complainant testified, as corroborated by the
other State witnesses, that when accused-appellant and a certain
 Dexter Cris Adalim was about to further charge against each other,
private complainant and fellow police officer PO1 Tare introduced
themselves as police officers and ordered both accused-appellant
and a certain Dexter Cris Adalim to stop the fight. Thereafter, when
said police officers were about to interrogate both accused-appellant
and Dexter Adalim about the occurrence, accused-appellant ran away
in disobedience of the authority of private complainant to investigate the
participants of the brawl, which prompted private complainant to chase
him.
There is no question, therefore, that the act by private
complainant of chasing a fleeing suspect was in performance of his duty
and such performance enjoys presumption of regularity. When accused-
appellant admitted that he may have hurt private complainant when the
latter chased him as he was trying to resist the latter negates his position
that he had no intention of committing Direct Assault[.]
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is
hereby DISMISSED. The court a quo's Decision dated May 4, 2020 is
hereby AFFIRMED. HEITAD

SO ORDERED. 10
Dissatisfied, Rochard elevated the case to the CA through a Petition for
Review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 10207-MIN. Rochard argued that he is
only liable for resistance or disobedience considering that PO3 Adalim's injuries
are not of a serious nature. On November 11, 2021, the CA agreed with the trial
courts' rulings that all the elements of direct assault are present, 11 to wit:
As borne out by the records, the prosecution was able to prove
that petitioner made an attack, employed force and made a serious
resistance upon SPO1 Adalim. As observed by the MTCC and RTC,
SPO1 Adalim responded to the call for assistance from his brother,
Dexter. Upon arrival at the place of incident, he and PO2 Tare saw
Dexter and petitioner engaged [sic] in a serious fight. SPO1 Adalim
shouted at the protagonists to stop the fight and introduced himself and
PO2 Tare as police officers. However, upon hearing the reprehension,
petitioner immediately fled and ran towards his house. SPO1 Adalim
chased petitioner and was able to hold the latter's right arm. Petitioner
however punched him at his chest, but even then, he still continued to
run after the petitioner. When petitioner reached the gate of his house,
he slammed the gate and quickly closed it, but in the process however,
SPO1 Adalim's fingers were caught with the metal of the gate and got
injured as a consequence. Interestingly, petitioner never denied this fact
and even admitted that he may have hurt SPO1 Adalim, albeit putting
up the lame excuse that he was merely defending himself for fear of his
life.
 Petitioner, however, insists that his act of allegedly punching the
chest of SPO1 Adalim and injuring the latter's fingers are not serious as
to constitute employment of force. Hence, he argues that since the use
of physical force against SPO1 Adalim is not serious, he should be held
liable only for the crime of resistance and disobedience under Article 151
of the RPC.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, the MTCC and RTC are one in saying that
petitioner's use of physical force against SPO1 Adalim was
serious. As found by both the MTCC and RTC, petitioner's acts of
punching the chest of SPO1 Adalim and quickly closing the gate and
thereby injuring SPO1 Adalim's fingers as a consequence were serious
because it constitutes an [sic] offensive or antagonistic actions
committed against SPO1 Adalim. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Further, as held by the MTCC and RTC, petitioner was aware that
SPO1 Adalim is an agent of a person in authority who was engaged in
the actual performance of official duties at the time of the assault. x x x
And finally,there was no public uprising at the time of the assault. aDSIHc

Against the damning evidence presented by the prosecution,

what petitioner could only muster is a barefaced denial. It is a cardinal
rule that the defense of denial cannot stand when faced with clear
positive identification of the accused as the person who committed the
crime. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Anent the penalty x x x, this Court finds it to be in accordance with
law. Under Article 148 of the RPC, the crime of direct assault is
punishable with prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not
exceeding [PHP]500.00 in the absence of qualifying aggravating
circumstances, such as in this case.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the
penalty shall be that which, in view of attending circumstances, could
properly imposed under the rules of the RPC, and the minimum term
shall be taken from the penalty next lower to that prescribed by RPC. As
such, the maximum term of the penalty shall be taken from prision
correccional in its minimum period, that its, [sic] six (6) months and one
(1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months; while the minimum term
shall be taken from penalty next lower which is arresto mayor,that is,
one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, the Amended Petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated 29 December 2020 and the Resolution dated 17
 February 2021, both rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial
Region, Branch 19, Pagadian City, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 12
Rochard sought reconsideration but was denied. 13 Hence, this Petition.
Rochard contends that the CA erred in finding him guilty of direct assault and
insisted that he was merely evading arrest without intention to defy the authority
of PO3 Adalim. On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG),insists that Rochard committed direct assault because he
intentionally used force and injured PO3 Adalim while performing his duties as
a police officer. 14
RULING
The Petition is partly meritorious.
Direct assault is a crime against public order and the principal object is
to penalize the spirit of lawlessness or lack of respect for the rule of law. There
are two modes of committing direct assault: first,by any person or persons who,
without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of
any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition;
and, second,by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall
attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or
any of their agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on
occasion of such performance. 15 ATICcS

Rochard was charged under the second mode of direct assault which
has the following elements, to wit:(1) that the offender makes an attack,
employs force, makes a serious intimidation, or makes a serious resistance; (2)
that the person assaulted is a person in authority or their agent; (3) that at the
time of the assault, the person in authority or their agent is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, or that they are assaulted by reason of the past
performance of official duties; (4) that the offender knows that the one they are
assaulting is a person in authority or his or her agent in the exercise of their
duties; and (5) that there is no public uprising. 16
At the trial, the prosecution established the second, third, fourth, and fifth
elements of direct assault. The CA, the RTC, and the MTCC are unanimous in
their findings that PO3 Adalim is an agent of a person in authority. As a police
officer, PO3 Adalim was charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property. 17 Also, PO3 Adalim was engaged
in the actual performance of his duties at the time of the assault. PO3 Adalim
responded to investigate the alleged threats committed against his brother and
to apprehend the culprit. More importantly, Rochard knew that the victim is
possessed with some sort of authority. PO3 Adalim introduced himself as a
police officer when he arrived at the place of the incident. Lastly, it is undisputed
that there was no public uprising.
The controversy lies in the first element: whether the nature and amount
of force that Rochard employed against PO3 Adalim constitute direct assault.
On this score, the Court held that 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, 18 thus:
In United States v. Gumban,this Court held that the amount of
force employed against agents of persons in authority spells the
difference between direct assault and resistance or disobedience:
In reaching this conclusion, we took into account
the decision rendered by this court in the case against
Gelacio Tabiana and Canillas, in which it is said that the
distinction between an assault and a resistance to
agents of authority lies largely in the amount of the
force employed in each case, and that a sudden blow
given to a policeman while engaged in effecting an
arrest does not constitute that employment of force
which is punishable as assault. We have also
considered the decision rendered by this court in the case
against Cipriano Agustin ...in which it was also held that a
blow upon a policeman was not an aggression amounting
to an assault. It must be remembered, however, that in
these two cases the crime involved was that of assault
upon agents of authority, in which the essential element is
substantially the force employed. It is said in these two
cases that any force is not sufficient to constitute an
assault[,] but that it is necessary to consider the
circumstances of each case to decide whether the
force used is, or is not, sufficient to constitute assault
upon an agent of authority.
Previous convictions for direct assault against an agent of a
person in authority involve force that is more severe than slapping
and punching. In United States v. Cox,the accused "seized [the police
officer] by the throat, threw him to the ground, and struck him several
blows with the club which he succeeded in wresting from the
policeman[.]" ETHIDa

In Rivera v. People,the accused repeatedly hurled menacing

threats against the police officer, challenged him to a fight, and scored
a punch on the lip as they grappled. The officer sustained an injury that
would take several days to heal, while the accused was only subdued
with the help of other police officers. Thus:
 ...the accused pointed a finger on the policeman
and uttered words like "Babalian kita ng buto" (I'll break
your bones)."Ilalampaso kita" (I'll scrub you)."Pulis lang
kayo" (you are only policemen) and other unsavory and
insulting words. Inspector Leygo who was a little bit angry
warned the accused to stop uttering further insulting words
and cautioned him to take it easy and then informed him
that he was being arrested for violation of the chicken dung
ordinance. The accused removed his jacket, placed it
inside the vehicle, assumed a fighting stance and
challenged the policeman. Inspector Leygo then
approached the accused and warned him anew that he
was being arrested. The accused responded by punching
Inspector Leygo on his face, particularly on his lip. The two
then grappled as Inspector Leygo tried to hold the
accused. Finally, with the help of Policemen Dayap and
Bongcado, the accused was subdued. The accused was
then pushed into one of the police cars but he resisted until
Alfredo Castro, one of the chicken dung dealers in the
area, boarded the police car to accompany him.
xxx xxx xxx
As clarified in People v. Breis,if the use of physical force
against agents of persons in authority is not serious, the offense is
not direct assault, but resistance or disobedience:
The laying of hands or using physical force
against agents of persons in authority when not
serious in nature constitutes resistance or
disobedience under Article 151, and not direct assault
under Article 148 of the RPC. This is because 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. The pushing of IO1 Mangili is not of such
serious defiance to be considered direct assault, but is
resistance nonetheless. TIADCc

xxx xxx xxx

In this case, it was established that petitioner grabbed the
shirt of PO2 Navarro, then slapped and kicked him several times.
xxx xxx xxx
Based on the circumstances, petitioner's resistance and use
of force are not so serious to be deemed as direct assault. While
 she exerted force, it is not dangerous, grave, or severe enough to
warrant the penalties attached to the crime. 19 (Emphasis supplied)
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.
Again, the force involved in direct assault must be serious or more than a
sudden blow, slapping, or punching. Corollarily, although the charge is direct
assault, the prosecution was able to prove resistance or disobedience. These
felonies have similar elements, varying only as to the degree of seriousness of
the offender's resistance. Direct assault necessarily includes resistance or
disobedience. 20
Under Article 151 of the RPC, the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding PHP500.00 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 PHP10.00
to PHP100.00 shall be imposed upon the offender. In this case, the Court finds
that Rochard is guilty of resistance to an agent of a person in authority
considering the particular conditions under which the felony is committed.
Hence, the Court deems it proper to impose upon Rochard the straight penalty
of three months of arresto mayor and a fine of PHP500.00. The Indeterminate
Sentence Law is inapplicable given that the maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed one year.
ACCORDINGLY,the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.The Court of
Appeals' Decision dated November 11, 2021 and Resolution dated March 22,
2022 in CA-G.R. SP No. 10207-MIN are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.Petitioner Rochard Balsamo y Dominguez is found guilty of
resistance to an agent of a person in authority and is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of three months of arresto mayor and pay a PHP500.00 fine. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Lazaro-Javier, J.Y. Lopez and Kho, Jr.,JJ.,concur.
 Footnotes
1. People v. Breis,766 Phil. 783, 811 (2015) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].See also
United States v. Tabiana,37 Phil. 515 (1918) [Per J. Street, En Banc].
2. Rollo,pp. 3-21.
3. Id. at 24-38. Penned by Associate Justice Richard O. Moderno, with the concurrence
of Associate Justices Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales and Alfonso C. Ruiz II.
4. Id. at 26-27.
5. Id. at 70-71.
6. Id. at 42.
7. Id. at 47-68.
8. Id. at 67-68.
9. Id. at 43-46.
10. Id. at 44-46.
11. Id. at 24-38.
12. Id. at 34-37.
13. Id. at 40-41.
14. Id. at 79-97.
15. Revised Penal Code, Article 148.
16. Rafols, et al. v. People,G.R. No. 248730, July 14, 2021 [Notice, Third Division].
17. Revised Penal Code, Article 152.
18. Mallari v. People,870 Phil. 687 (2020) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
19. Id. at 698-704.
20. Id. at 705.
||| (Balsamo y Dominguez v. People, G.R. No. 260109, [April 12, 2023])