What is Compulsion of Irresistible Force | Article 12, Par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code

Introduction

What is Compulsion of Irresistible Force? Picture this. You are on the edge of your seat. Tonight, the soap opera that you have been watching and keeping an eye on is at the peak of its story. This episode will finally reveal who really killed the matriarch of the family.

It started off with a shooting of a gun – blood shot. Then, slowly showing the face of the killer. To your shock, it was his son, that was projected on the television screen. But, when the camera panned to the left, four armed men stood right beside him.

It can be gleaned from his eyes on how it waters and from his body on how it sweats. He did not want to do this. He did not want to kill – kill his mother. It is as if those four men were pulling his strings by force as a puppet, there is nothing he can do.

Hence, you are in awe of what you have just watched, making the thought of “Will the son be punished, even though he was obviously compelled under such circumstance?” linger in your mind.

Article 12, Paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides the exempting circumstances where a person can be exempt from criminal liability, one of these is stipulated in Article 12, paragraph 5, which states that:

Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. – the following are exempt from criminal liability:¹

…5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force.²

This specific provision of the law makes the assumption that a person commits a crime, not by his own will, but because of compulsion through violence or force.

In order to qualify in this exempting circumstance, the following elements must be present:

That the compulsion is by means of physical force.

In the first element, the offender uses force that is sufficient enough to compel the other person to commit such act.

That the physical force must be irresistible.

In the second element, the employment of physical force of the offender to the other person should be that overpowering in a way that it compels his body to act and his mind to obey.³

That the physical force must come from a third person.

Lastly, in the third element, the involvement of a third person is essential, for physical force must originate therefrom.

What is compulsion of irresistible force?

In this specific exempting circumstance, the law eradicates the criminal liability of any person who committed a crime or felony, no matter how brutal and unimaginable it is, provided that he is acting against his will and acting through a compulsion of an irresistible force.

According to Reyes (2021), the basis of Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code is the complete absence of freedom. However, before an act can be considered as such, the aforementioned elements must be met, otherwise, it cannot be considered as an exempting circumstance pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 5.

Furthermore, the nature of the ‘force’ must be that overwhelming for the accused to be reduced to a passive tool that operates without a will and against his own will. Should the act not be committed, such force must be menacing and about to happen, that makes the accused have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm or injury.

Hence, a mere threat of harm in the future is insufficient. Such force should be in a manner that the accused cannot get away or fight back in an equal fight.⁴

However, as an exception, there can be no irresistible force present in a crime of passion or obfuscation. There must be an external, third-party force involved. 

Relevant Jurisprudence

‘Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus.’ It is a settled rule in our Philippine jurisprudence that ‘an act done by me against my will is not my act.’ In fact, there is an array of rulings that the Supreme Court has decided with regard to the exempting circumstance of Article 12, paragraph 5.

In the case of People vs. Loreno, No. L-54414, July 9, 1984, 130 SCRA 311, 321,⁵ the accused was charged with robbery with double rape, allegedly committed by Eustaquio Loreno y Malaga and Jimmy Marantal y Londete, who were both arrested and indicted. The appellants, asserted that their actions were driven by an irresistible force, an uncontrollable fear of a similar or larger harm, or both.⁵

While it is true that they were in Elias Monge’s house on the evening of January 7, 1978, however, according to them, they were only being forced by a man in a black sweater and his five companions who claimed to be New People’s Army (NPA) members operating in the area and threatened to kill the appellants and their families if they did not comply. However, the Supreme Court believed that the claim is untenable.⁵

In conjunction with this, the Court made a pertinent discussion on how the compulsion of an irresistible force arises:

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him 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 a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of Appellee’s Brief. death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of Such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.⁵

In the case of U.S. vs. Elicanal, 35 Phil. 209,⁶ on the other hand, this involves an appellant who is just one of several people who were arrested and convicted for murder. Here, he is both en consulta and on appeal after having received a death sentence.

The defendant’s only defense is that he killed the captain out of an uncontrollable fear of further harm instigated by the threat of Guillermo, the chief mate, and that he was so completely overcome by this fear that he struck the blow that killed the captain without volition of his own and was reduced to a mere instrument in the hands of the chief mate.

However, the Supreme Court held that:

… before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must produce such an effect upon the 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 on 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 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.⁷

Therefore, it is of essential importance that whenever an accused would use Article 12, paragraph 5 as a defense, the aforementioned conditions should be satisfactorily fulfilled as laid down in our jurisprudence.

Summary

In a nutshell, Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code clearly provides for one of the circumstances that can exempt a person from criminal liability, and that is when any person who, committed a felony or a crime, acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

However, to benefit from this specific exempting circumstance, three (3) elements must be present which are:

(1) compulsion must be through physical force;

(2) the physical force must be irresistible in nature;

(3) the employment of the physical force must come from a third person.

Furthermore, under the existing jurisprudence, the nature of the ‘force’ should be present, imminent, and impending in such a way that the other person must be induced in a perception that, if the act is not fulfilled, death or bodily harm will surely follow. In addition, providing for the other person an opportunity to escape or self-defense in an equal combat should not also be regarded.

Conversely, what serves as an exception to this provision lies in the crime of passion or obfuscation, jurisprudence has laid down that there can never exist a compulsion of irresistible force in the said the crime.

Conclusion

At last, back to the question that your mind was lingering on, the soap opera, “Will the son be punished, even though he was obviously compelled under such circumstance?”

By this time, you already have a clear answer in mind – No. The son will not be punished and will be exempt from any criminal liability arising therefrom.

While it is true, given the facts, that the son himself shot his mother and eventually leading to death. He cannot be held criminally liable because of the exempting circumstance of compulsion of irresistible force, pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

It undisputed that the act committed by the son was without his will and against his will, he was compelled by the four (4) armed men, therefore, provided that the elements of compulsion of irresistible force are present, he is exempt from criminal liability.

The Philippine jurisprudence has laid down time and again, the principle of ‘Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus,’ which means that ‘an act done by me against my will is not my act.’ Hence, a person who becomes literally a puppet for the perpetrators is merely just an instrument for crime or felony committed but could not be held liable unlike those people who are literally pulling their strings by force.

1. Article 12, Paragraph 5, The Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815[↩]
2. Id.[↩]
3. U.S. vs. Elicanal, G.R. No. L-11439, October 28, 1916, 35 Phil. 209[↩]
4. People vs. Loreno, No. L-54414, July 9, 1984, 130 SCRA 311, 321-322, citing People vs. Villanueva, 104 Phil. 450[↩]
5. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
6. Supra., G.R. No. L-11439, October 28, 1916, 35 Phil. 209[↩]
7. Ibid.[↩]