Short answer. Generally no, if it qualifies. Article 11 lists, among the justifying circumstances, any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office — and those who fall within it do not incur any criminal liability. But the duty must be real and the injury a necessary consequence of performing it.
What the law says
The following do not incur any criminal liability
Revised Penal Code, Article 11 — Justifying Circumstances: Self-Defence And Defence Of Others. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Revised Penal Code, Article 11 — Justifying Circumstances: Self-Defence And Defence Of Others. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Revised Penal Code, Article 11 — Justifying Circumstances: Self-Defence And Defence Of Others. Read the full provision →
Fulfillment of a duty is a justifying circumstance
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code lists the justifying circumstances, and it begins by declaring that the following do not incur any criminal liability. Its fifth paragraph covers any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. So a person who injures another while genuinely carrying out a legal duty — the classic example being an officer using necessary force in the line of duty — is not, in principle, criminally answerable for that injury. The act is treated as justified: the law itself required or authorised the conduct, so it does not punish the person for doing what he was duty-bound to do.
The injury must flow from the duty itself
This justification is conditioned, not a blanket shield. Two things must hold together. First, there must be a real, lawful duty — or a legitimate right or office being exercised — not merely a claim of one. Second, the injury must be the necessary consequence of the due performance of that duty. If the harm went beyond what performing the duty actually required, the excess is not justified, and the person can be answerable for it. A duty to act does not license any amount of harm; it justifies only the harm that carrying out the duty properly could not avoid. Where a person overdoes it, he steps outside the protection of the paragraph.
Why 'justified' is stronger than 'excused'
It is worth understanding what a justifying circumstance is, because it is more favourable than merely being excused. When conduct is justified, the law regards the act itself as lawful — there is no crime at all. That is different from an exempting circumstance, where a crime was committed but the actor is spared punishment. Because a justified act is lawful, it generally carries no civil liability for the resulting injury either, since there was no wrong to answer for. A person excused by an exempting circumstance may still face civil consequences; a person whose act is justified under Article 11 ordinarily does not.
Where the claim can fail
The paragraph is often confused with simply having good intentions, and that is where claims fall apart. Acting in what one imagines to be a duty, exceeding the force the duty called for, or using a lawful office as cover for a personal grievance takes the conduct outside the justification. The related paragraph on any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose is similarly limited — the order and its purpose must be lawful. Whether your particular act was truly the fulfillment of a duty, and whether the injury was its necessary result, are questions decided on the specific facts.