Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (Art. 12, Par. 6, RPC)


What is uncontrollable fear?

Uncontrollable fear is an impulse coming from within the person of the actor himself. The actor acts not against his will but because he is engendered by the fear. The threat producing the insuperable fear must be grave, actual, serious and such kind that the majority of men would have succumbed to such moral compulsion. (Feria and Gregorio, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 224) 

For such a 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. (People vs. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009)

In order for the circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat. (People vs. Anod)

To avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish: (1) the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. A threat of future injury is insufficient. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to escape. (People vs. Tangarocan, G.R. No. 185209, June 28, 2010) 


Elements:

(1) That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is forced to commit;

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


Basis: Complete absence of freedom.


Example:

If one is compelled under fear of death to join the rebels, he is not liable for rebellion because he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (US v. Exaltacion, 3 Phil. 339)


In order for the circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

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. However, we held that for such a 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. In this case, as correctly held by the CA, based on the evidence on record, appellant had the chance to escape Lumbayan's threat or engage Lumbayan in combat, as appellant was also holding a knife at the time. Thus, appellant's allegation of fear or duress is untenable. We have held that in order for the circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat. Therefore, under the circumstances, appellant’s alleged fear, arising from the threat of Lumbayan, would not suffice to exempt him from incurring criminal liability. (People vs. Anod)


The threat that caused the uncontrollable fear should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for ones life or limb. A mere threat of a future injury is not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote.

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 ones life or limb. A mere threat of a future injury is not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote. 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.

In this case, far from it, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and imminent. 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 mothers 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. (Ty vs. People, G.R. No. 149275. September 27, 2004)