G.R. No. L-40150 December 19, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR OBEDA, GUMERSINDO JURIAL, ARCADIO SAGUINZA, SESINANDO SABARES and MELITON SALAS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On February 15, 1969, during a barrio fiesta dance in Pilar, Cebu, Patrolman Antonio Maaghop, who was in uniform and detailed as security, intervened to pacify an altercation. He fired two warning shots and picked up a bolo thrown onto the tennis court. While he was inquiring about the weapon, he was suddenly set upon by several individuals, including Gumersindo Jurial, Sesinando Sabares, and Arcadio Saguinza, who held and assaulted him. While the patrolman was thus restrained, appellant Cesar Obeda approached from behind and stabbed him in the back with a kitchen knife. The victim fell and later died from the fatal wound. His carbine was also snatched during the commotion. Obeda’s co-accused were convicted of direct assault, but only Obeda appealed his conviction for the complex crime of direct assault with murder, for which the trial court imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted Cesar Obeda of the complex crime of direct assault with murder, warranting the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty. The legal logic proceeds from the established facts proving the complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The stabbing constituted a single act that produced two grave felonies: direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority, and murder. Direct assault was consummated when Obeda and his cohorts attacked Patrolman Maaghop while he was in the performance of his official duty—intervening to quell a disturbance at a public dance. The Court rejected Obeda’s argument that the patrolman was not properly performing his duty, ruling that his intention to restore order was sufficient to establish he was acting in his official capacity. The killing constituted murder due to the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia). The attack was sudden, from behind, while the victim was helplessly held by others, ensuring the execution without risk to the assailants. In a complex crime, the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed in its maximum period. Since murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, and the complexing with direct assault mandates the maximum period of the graver penalty, the imposition of the death penalty was legally correct. The Court found no mitigating circumstances sufficient to reduce the penalty.