n

Imagine being forced to participate in a crime, your life threatened if you refuse. Can fear be a valid legal defense? This is the question at the heart of duress, an exempting circumstance in Philippine criminal law. This case explores the boundaries of this defense, clarifying when fear can excuse criminal conduct and when it simply won’t.

n

This case, People of the Philippines vs. Juan Salvatierra, et al., delves into the complexities of the defense of duress. The accused, Enrique Constantino, claimed he participated in a robbery and homicide due to uncontrollable fear induced by his co-accused. The Supreme Court scrutinized this claim, providing clarity on the requirements for successfully invoking duress as a defense.

n

n

The Legal Framework: Duress as an Exempting Circumstance

n

Philippine law recognizes certain circumstances that exempt a person from criminal liability. One such circumstance is duress, as outlined in Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. This article states that a person is exempt from criminal liability if they act “under the compulsion of an irresistible force” or “under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.”

n

To successfully invoke duress, the fear must be real, imminent, and reasonable. Speculative or imagined fears are insufficient. The accused must demonstrate that they were left with no alternative but to commit the crime. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave the accused no opportunity for escape or self-defense.

n

Consider this example: A bank teller is threatened at gunpoint to hand over money to robbers. If the threat is immediate and credible, and the teller reasonably believes their life is in danger, they may be able to claim duress as a defense if charged with assisting the robbery. However, if the teller had an opportunity to alert authorities or resist without immediate danger, the defense of duress may not succeed.

n

The legal principle behind duress is rooted in the maxim “Actus me invito factus non est meus actus,” meaning “An act done by me against my will is not my act.” This highlights the absence of free will, a critical element for criminal culpability. The Supreme Court has consistently held that duress is an affirmative defense, meaning the accused bears the burden of proving its existence with clear and convincing evidence.

n

n

The Case: Robbery, Homicide, and a Plea of Fear

n

In May 1988, the residence of Hichiro Kubota and Elizabeth Hammond was robbed by a group of armed men. The robbery resulted in the deaths of Kubota and one of their maids, Hazel Arjona. Another maid, Marilyn Juguilon, was also injured. Among those charged was Enrique Constantino, a former driver for the family.

n

Constantino admitted being present during the robbery but claimed he acted under duress. He testified that he was coerced by his co-accused, Juan Salvatierra, who threatened him with a knife and ordered him to participate. Constantino argued that he feared for his life and had no choice but to comply.

n

The case proceeded through the Regional Trial Court of Makati, where Constantino was found guilty of robbery with homicide. He appealed, maintaining his defense of duress. Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

n

n
• The Crime: Armed men rob the Kubota residence, resulting in deaths and injuries.

n

• The Accusation: Enrique Constantino, a former driver, is implicated.

n

• The Defense: Constantino claims he participated due to threats and fear.

n

• The Trial Court: Finds Constantino guilty.

n

• The Appeal: Constantino elevates the case to the Supreme Court.

n

n

The Supreme Court, in its decision, meticulously examined Constantino’s claims. The Court emphasized that the defense of duress requires a showing of real, imminent, and reasonable fear. The Court found Constantino’s version of events to be “shot through with contradicted self-serving representations” and “inherently incredible.”

n

The Court highlighted inconsistencies in Constantino’s testimony and pointed to evidence suggesting his active participation in the crime. As the Court stated, “Appellant could well have dissociated himself from the criminal escapade… [he] had all the opportunity to escape…”

n

Furthermore, the Court noted the positive testimonies of eyewitnesses who identified Constantino as an active participant in the robbery. Elizabeth Hammond testified that Constantino rang the doorbell, falsely introduced his companions, and even held her bag containing stolen money. Diosa Hammond testified that Constantino threatened her and was seen cleaning a knife after the incident.

n

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of credible witness testimony, stating, “Between the self-serving denial of appellant, on the one hand, and the categorical affirmation of the prosecution witnesses, on the other, the latter undoubtedly deserves greater credence.”

n

n

Practical Implications: What This Case Means for You

n

This case underscores the strict requirements for successfully claiming duress. It serves as a reminder that fear alone is not enough to excuse criminal conduct. The fear must be genuine, immediate, and leave the accused with no reasonable alternative.

n

For businesses, this ruling reinforces the importance of security protocols and employee training. Employees should be instructed on how to respond to threats and emergencies, and businesses should take steps to minimize the risk of coercion.

n

For individuals, this case highlights the need to assess threats rationally and seek help when possible. If you find yourself in a situation where you are being coerced into committing a crime, prioritize your safety and seek assistance from law enforcement or trusted individuals.

nn

Key Lessons:

n

n
• Duress requires real, imminent, and reasonable fear.

n

• The accused must have no reasonable opportunity to escape or resist.

n

• Self-serving claims of fear are unlikely to succeed without corroborating evidence.

n

• Eyewitness testimony is crucial in determining the credibility of a duress defense.

n

n

For example, imagine a situation where a person is told to drive a getaway car for a bank robbery, but is not directly threatened. If the person has the opportunity to drive away or alert the police, but chooses to participate out of fear of future retribution, a duress defense would likely fail. The fear was not immediate, and there were reasonable alternatives available.

n

n

Frequently Asked Questions

n

Q: What is duress in legal terms?

n

A: Duress is a legal defense where a person commits a crime because they are under threat of immediate danger to themselves or others.

n

Q: What are the elements of duress?

n

A: The key elements are: (1) a threat of serious bodily harm or death; (2) the threat must be immediate and inescapable; and (3) the defendant must have been compelled to commit the crime because of the threat.

n

Q: Can I claim duress if I was threatened with something other than physical harm?

n

A: Generally, duress requires a threat of serious bodily harm or death. Threats to property or reputation are usually not sufficient.

n

Q: What happens if I successfully claim duress?

n

A: If you successfully prove duress, you are exempt from criminal liability for the act you were forced to commit.

n

Q: Is it easy to prove duress?

n

A: No, it is a difficult defense to prove. The burden is on the defendant to provide clear and convincing evidence of the threat and its impact on their actions.

n

Q: What should I do if someone is threatening me to commit a crime?

n

A: Your safety is the priority. If possible, try to remove yourself from the situation and immediately contact law enforcement. Document any threats or evidence of coercion.

n

Q: Does the duress defense apply to all crimes?

n

A: There are some exceptions. For example, the defense of duress is typically not available in murder cases.

n

Q: What is the difference between duress and necessity?

n

A: Duress involves a threat from another person, while necessity involves a choice between two evils, where one is caused by natural forces or circumstances.

p>ASG Law specializes in criminal defense. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

n