Short answer. Both of you can be, under different parts of the same provision. The one who directly forced or induced the act is a principal by inducement; the one who carried it out is a principal by direct participation, unless the force used on him was serious enough to excuse him.
What the law says
Those who directly force or induce others to commit it
Revised Penal Code, Article 17 — Who Counts As Principal. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
Revised Penal Code, Article 17 — Who Counts As Principal. Read the full provision →
The provision contemplates both of you at once
The question assumes the Code must choose, and it does not. Art. 17 lists those who take a direct part in the execution of the act and, separately, those who directly force or induce others to commit it. Both descriptions are descriptions of a principal, and both can be answered by the same incident. The person who applied the pressure does not escape because another pair of hands did the deed, and the person who acted is not automatically cleared because he was pushed into it. They are assessed under their own paragraphs, on their own facts.
What counts as forcing or inducing
The qualifier directly is doing real work here. Not every kind of pressure is inducement in the sense the article uses. Reluctance, a sense of obligation, fear of losing a job, or wanting to please somebody are ordinary human pressures and are not what the provision contemplates. What is contemplated is force or influence that operates as the determining cause of the act — a command backed by something, a threat, a price paid for it. Whether words or conduct reached that level is a matter of evidence about what was said, what was at stake and what followed.
When the person who acted may not be liable at all
The Code deals with the pressed man elsewhere, through the circumstances that exempt a person from criminal liability, among them acting under an irresistible force or under an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. The threshold is high: the force or the fear must leave no real choice at the moment of the act, not merely make refusal costly or frightening in a general way. Where it is met, the person who acted may not answer for the crime while the person behind him still does. Where it is not met, both remain within the article.
What the two positions need from the evidence
These are opposed accounts, and each depends on material the other side will test. What matters is the record of the pressure itself — messages, recordings, witnesses to the threat, injuries, the timing of what was said against when the act occurred — and whether there was an opportunity to walk away or report it. Nobody in this situation should assume the version that seems obvious to them will be the version accepted. Each person here needs separate advice, and neither should give a statement framing the other before taking it.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 16 — Who Are Criminally Liable
- Revised Penal Code, Article 17 — Who Counts As Principal