ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS –

AN ACT DONE BY ME AGAINST MY WILL IS NOT MY ACT

Maxims, in the legal field, are somewhat like axioms in geometry or the rules in a football
game. They are guiding principles that are supposed to enter into and be the end result of any
legislation or court case.

This is a Latin phrase that is part of a collection of items loosely called "the maxims of law".

These are not "written law" or "statutory law" per se, they are more part of the common law
tradition.

There are a number of legal maxims one of them is : Actus me invito factus, non est meus
actus which means "An act done by me against my will is not my act". So were I to come up to
you, put a gun to your head and make to make a threatening phone call, or whatever then you
are basically innocent. You did not choose to voluntarily and freely make the call. I forced you
and during the time that i forced you, you have no freedom.

This legal maxim can also be appreciated in the case of United States v. Ah Chong which was
decided by the Supreme Court on March 19, 1910.

In US v. Ah Chong, the defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in one of the Officers’
quarters at Fort McKinley, Rizal Province. Together living with him in the said quarters was the
deceased, Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a houseboy. There had been several
robberies in Fort McKinley prior to the incident thus prompting the defendant and his roommate
to reinforce the flimsy hook used to lock the door of their room by placing a chair against it. The
defendant and the deceased had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should
knock on the door and say his name. On the night of Aug. 14, 1908, Ah Chong, who was alone
in his room, was awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the room. The defendant
called out twice, asking the identity of the person but heard no answer. Fearing that the intruder
was a robber or a thief, the defendant called out that he would kill the intruder if he tried to enter.
At that moment, the door was forced open and the defendant was struck first above the knee by
the edge of the chair. Because of the darkness of the room, the defendant thought he was being
hit by the intruder and tried to defend himself by striking wildly at the intruder using a common
kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow. It turned out that the said intruder was actually the
defendant’s roommate, Pascual Gualberto. The roommate was brought to the military hospital
where he died from the effects of the wound the following day.
 The issue now faced by the Court is whether or not the defendant was criminally liable for
committing a felony?

The Court ruled that defendant was not criminally liable and exonerated from criminal
liability. Supreme Court said that in order for mistake of fact to be held as a valid defense, there
has to be several requisites. One, that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be. Two, that the intention of the accused in performing the act
should be lawful, and lastly, that the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part
of the accused.

In the case at bar, had the intruder been a robber as the defendant believed him to be, then
Ah Chong acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent (an act done by me against
my will is not my act), and would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability and that he
cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness.

Additionally in People vs Del Rosario G.R. No. 127755 the Supreme Court ruled that:

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability
because he does not act with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act
done by me against my will is not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable as
to reduce the actor 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 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. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by fear when threatened with weapons, even
those less powerful than a gun, such as knives and clubs. People will normally, usually and
probably do what an armed man asks them to do, nothing more, nothing less. In the instant case,
del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life
to help a stranger. A person under the same circumstances would be more concerned with his
personal welfare and security rather than the safety of a person whom he only saw for the first
time that day.