USE OF

FORCE
POLICY
SECTION 2-4, REVISED
POLICE OPERATIONAL
PROCEDURE
 2.8 APPLICATION OF NECESSARY AND REASONABLE FORCE.

In the lawful performance of duty, a police officer shall use necessary and reasonable force
to accomplish his/her mandated task of enforcing the law and maintaining peace and order.

A police officer, however, is not required to afford the offender/s attacking him/ her the
opportunity for a fair or equal struggle. The necessity and reasonableness of the force
employed will depend upon the number of aggressors, nature and characteristic of the weapon
used, physical condition, size and other circumstances to include the place and occasion of the
assault. The police officer is given the sound discretion to consider these factors in employing
reasonable force.
2.8 APPLICATION OF NECESSARY AND REASONABLE FORCE.

During confrontation with an armed offender, only such necessary and reasonable force shall
be applied as would be sufficient to overcome the aggression by the offender; subdue the clear
and imminent danger posed by him/her; or to justify the force/act under the principles of self-
defense, defense of relative, defense of stranger or fulfillment of duty, in accordance with the
elements laid down by law and jurisprudence. The excessive use of force to arrest or
immobilize the suspect during police operation is prohibited.
 2.9 THE FORCE CONTINUUM

It is a linear-progressive decision-making process which displays the array of police

reasonable responses commensurate to the level of suspect/law offender’s resistance to effect
compliance, arrest and other law enforcement actions.

It allows police officer responses to be flexible and/or employ reasonable force in either
sequential, consecutive or combination of options against the dynamic suspect/s or law offender/s
threats or resistances. In all instances, the professional and respectable deportment of police as
public safety servants, civil use of language, well-mannered decorum and utmost respect for
human rights shall be observed.
THREE APPROACHES ON THE USE OF FORCE CONTINUUM

1) Non-Lethal Approach. This involves the police presence in crime-prone areas and the
employment of activities or actions to persuade and/or request cooperation of people particularly
suspects and law offenders to police instructions and other control efforts.

2) Less Lethal Approach. This involves the employment of less lethal equipment that do not cause
serious injury and/or death and that less physical measures have been tried and deemed
inappropriate purposely to ensure cooperation, compliance or surrender. The age, gender and
health condition of offenders shall be considered before the employment of less lethal equipment.

3) Lethal Approach. This involves the employment of lethal equipment usually as last resort. Lethal
force will only be employed when all other approaches have been exhausted and found to be
insufficient to thwart the life-threatening actions or omissions posed by armed suspect or law
offender. This approach carries with it the greater responsibility as it may result to severe injury
and serious bodily harm and/or death.
2.9 THE FORCE CONTINUUM / NON LETHAL APPROACH
2.9 THE FORCE CONTINUUM / NON LETHAL APPROACH
2.9 THE FORCE CONTINUUM / NON LETHAL APPROACH
2.9 THE FORCE CONTINUUM / NON LETHAL APPROACH
2.9 THE FORCE CONTINUUM / LESS LETHAL APPROACH
2.9 THE FORCE CONTINUUM / LETHAL APPROACH
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ARTEMIO MOJICA, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. 17650 February 15, 1922

US vs Artemio Mojica
Facts:

On the 14th day of December, 1920, in the city of Manila, one Crispin Macasinag, was

placed under arrest by a police officer who endeavored to conduct him from the middle of the

street and over to the sidewalk. He resisted the officer and finally succeeded in freeing himself.

He then confronted policeman Duque whom he struck with his fist and who returned the blow

with his club. Macasinag reeled from the blow inflicted on him by Duque and while apparently in

a somewhat dazed condition, drew his mess kit knife and brandishing it attacked one of the

responding policemen, Artemio Mojica. The latter retreated a step or two, drew his revolver and

discharged it at Macasinag inflicting a wound from which the latter died a few days later.
US vs Artemio Mojica

Issue:

Whether or not the use of firearm over a knife attack is a

reasonable necessity for the means employed to repel the
unlawful aggression.
US vs Artemio Mojica
Ruling:

A police officer, in the performance of his duty, must stand his ground and cannot, like a private
individual, take refuge in flight; his duty requires him to overcome his opponent. The force which he may
exert therefore differs somewhat from that which may ordinarily be offered in self-defense. Bearing this in
mind, we do not think that the appellant (Artemio Mojica) in using his revolver against the deceased can be
said to have employed unnecessary force. The deceased attacked him with a deadly weapon; he might,
perhaps, have saved himself by running away, but this his duty forbade. Was he to allow himself to be
stabbed before using his arms? It may, perhaps, be argued that the appellant might have used his club, but

a policeman's club is not a very effective weapon as against a drawn knife and a police officer is not

required to afford a person attacking him the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle.
US vs Artemio Mojica
Ruling:

Considering the threatening attitude of Macasinag, the appellant had the best of reasons for

believing that his life was in imminent danger and we think the means employed by him

for his defense were, in the circumstances, reasonably necessary.

END OF PRESENTATION

Thank you..