Uncontrollable Fear in Criminal Law, and its Effect on Criminal Liability

We shall examine the doctrine of uncontrollable fear in criminal law. Article 12 paragraph 6 discusses one of the situations in which a specific person’s criminal liability is waived or not attributed to the individual committing the supposed criminal act.

This exempting circumstance absolves a person of criminal guilt because the unlawful act was motivated by an external factor, which are intimidation or threat, as the case may be. Additionally, Article 12 paragraph 6 follows the legal maxim “Actus me invito factus non est meus actus” (An act done by me against my will is not my act).

What does the Code say?

Article 12 par. 6 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly provides that: Circumstances which exempt criminal liability – The following are exempt from criminal liability:¹

xxx     xxx     xxx

Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal injury.²

xxx     xxx     xxx

Split the elements

Before of Article 12 paragraph. 6 of Revised Penal Code be considered, the following elements are must be present:

• That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit.

The threat compelling someone to perform a certain offense should be larger than or equivalent to that which he is needed to commit. Likewise, when A, a notorious robber, threatened B with death if he did not assist him in robbing the rich man’s house. If B acts as a lookout for A out of fear, he can properly invoke Article 12 par 6, as death is more serious than imprisonment for up to 40 years.

• That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

The uncontrollable fear must be real and imminent. In the above example, since A is a notorious criminal, the serious death threat against B, should he refused to help him to accomplished his plans, shall be deemed an imminent danger to B’s life and limb.

What is Uncontrollable Fear in Criminal Law?

Although the general rule in Criminal Law is the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, however, when a particular exempting circumstance is invoked, the burden of proof will now be shifted to the accused. If the defense is claiming that the accused shall be exempt from criminal liability, they must establish the same to the satisfaction of the court.

In paragraph 6 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, the defendant must prove that there is uncontrollable fear which forced him or compelled him to do such action. Duress it this case can be used as a valid defense, provided that such is based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. Even the possibility of further harm is not sufficient.

Anyone who is invoking this defense shall prove that the compelling force deprived him of chance and opportunity to escape or defend himself in equal combat. Additionally, it should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear as these are not considered as uncontrollable fear.

For this exempting circumstance [uncontrollable fear] to be invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (1) existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.³

It must appear that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it. It should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. A mere threat of a future injury is not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote.⁴

A person invoking uncontrollable fear must show therefore that the compulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only without will but against his will as well. It must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape.⁴

Paragraph 6 of Article 12 [Revised Penal Code] should not be interpreted or construed as same as with the preceding paragraph (paragraph 5 or irresistible force). There is a hairline distinction between these two.

In the irresistible force (par. 5), the means employed by the offender to compel another person to commit a crime is violence or physical force. In paragraph 6 (uncontrollable fear) the means employed by the offender to compel another to commit a crime is intimidation or threat.⁵

Uncontrollable Fear vs. Irresistible Force

Fear is a potent emotion that has the ability to drive a person to take action when compelled to do so. Fear is an emotion that can serve to alert one to potential threats. It is also a powerful catalyst that may make an individual do things even against his will. Fear can make a person feel trapped or uncomfortable, which can lead to tension, anxiety, and depression.

The victim is subjected to a sort of coercion known as the Irresistible Force, which compels him to carry out the command in spite of his free will and rational deliberation. It is possible to utilize it to coerce someone into doing something that they would not typically do because they regard it to be unethical, illegal, or socially unacceptable, such as stealing or even killing someone.

What did the High Court say?

The Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, defined and applied the said provision of this Code. It laid down the foundation for which the exempting circumstances of uncontrollable fear and irresistible force be properly categorized and compared.

Uncontrollable Fear

Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom.⁶

In [People vs.] Del Rosario, [according to the Supreme Court,] however, we held that for such defense to prosper the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough.⁷

Indeed, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code exempts a person from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom.⁸

Speculative Fear

In the case of Ty vs. People,⁹ when the accused herein forced to issue a bouncing check to discharge her mother from the hospital’s unfair and inhuman treatment, invoked paragraph 6 of Article 12 of this Code, the Court ruled that “In this case, far from it, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and imminent.⁴

Ty claims that she was compelled to issue the checks–a condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother could be discharged–for fear that her mother’s health might deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital or worse, her mother might commit suicide. This is speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by law.⁴

To begin with, there was no showing that the mother’s illness was so life-threatening such that her continued stay in the hospital suffering all its alleged unethical treatment would induce a well-grounded apprehension of her death.⁴

Secondly, it is not the law’s intent to say that any fear exempts one from criminal liability much less petitioner’s flimsy fear that her mother might commit suicide. In other words, the fear she invokes was not impending or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a mere instrument without will, moved exclusively by the hospital’s threats or demands.”⁴

Irresistible Force

In the case of US vs. Elicanal,¹⁰ the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the trial court rejecting the defense of the accused holding that the chief mate did not exercise such influence over the accused as amounted to an uncontrollable fear or that deprived him of his violation.¹¹

In the same case, the Court also described when a force is to be considered as irresistible one, accordingly:

“…before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must produce such an effect upon then individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime. It must be such that, in spite of the resistance of the person in whom it operates, it compels his members to act and his mind to obey. He must act not only without will but against will. such a force can never consist in anything which springs primarily from the man himself; it must be a force which acts upon him from the outside and by means of a third person.”¹¹

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act.¹²

The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.¹³

To sum it up

To recapitulate, Article 12 par 6 speaks about uncontrollable fear. It is one of the circumstances which exempt the criminal liability. The basis of the defense is complete absence of freedom. Concomitantly, it is based on the legal maxim “Actus me invito factus non est meus actus” (An act done by me against my will is not my act).

For it to be considered as a valid defense to exempt the accused from criminal liability, the following elements should be present: (a) That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit (b) That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

It bears stressing that not all ‘fear’ is appreciated in this particular provision of the law but only ‘uncontrollable fear’ is accepted as a valid defense for someone to be exempt from criminal liability, and like other Exempting Circumstances, the burden of proof is now shifted to the accused. He must establish to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a real and imminent danger which compelled him to do such crime. Thus, a fear of future injury is untenable in this case.

Final Thoughts

The existence of uncontrollable fear is the sine qua non of Article 12 Par 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Jurisprudence has already described and defined what uncontrollable fear is.

This provision of the law exempts the offender from criminal liability because he is just a mere instrument in the commission of the crime, as well as one of the victims here as there is an external force, such as threat or fear that is employed by a third party, which compelled him to do such an action contrary to his will.

In other words, the offender is not responsible for the crime because he is just an instrument in the commission of the crime.

1. Article 12, Paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code[↩]
2. Id.[↩]
3. Ty vs. People, G.R. No. 149275, September 27, 2004[↩]
4. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
5. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 2001[↩]
6. People vs. Saldaña, et al., G.R. No. 148518, April 15, 2004[↩]
7. Ibid.[↩]
8. People vs. Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002[↩]
9. G.R. No. 149275, September 27, 2004[↩]
10. G.R. No. L-11439, October 28, 1916[↩]
11. Ibid.[↩][↩]
12. People vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999[↩]
13. Ibid.[↩]