G.R. No.

178771 June 8, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
ALBERTO ANTICAMARA y CABILLO and FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ a.k.a. LANDO CALAGUAS,

PERALTA, J.:

TOPIC: Uncontrollable Fear of an Equal or Greater Injury – Requisites

FACTS:
Accused Anticamara and Calaguas, together with others, unlawfully entered the residence of the Estrellas with the
intent of robbing the premises. There they kidnapped the driver Sulpacio Abad and the househelp AAA who were then
sleeping at that time. The accused brought Sulpacio and AAA to the fishpond of the Estrellas and there they killed Sulpacio.
Thereafter, Calaguas brought AAA to Tarlac where he and a certain Fred raped her several times during her captivity.
Eventually, AAA escaped her abductors and the two accused were arrested and convicted by the trial court with the crimes
of Murder and of Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention with Rape. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decisions.

On appeal to the SC, accused Anticamara attempts to evade criminal liability by alleging that he was only forced to
participate in the commission of the crime because he and his family were threatened to be killed by his co-accused.

ISSUE:
WON accused Anticamara is exempt from criminal liability under Paragraph 6, Article 12 of the RPC. (NO)

RULING:
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. 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. 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.

There is nothing in the records to substantiate accused Anticamara’s insistence that he was under duress from his
co-accused while participating in the crime that would suffice to exempt him from incurring criminal liability.