(G.R. No. 135981. Janauary 15, 2004) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, Appellant. Decision Panganiban, J.
(G.R. No. 135981. Janauary 15, 2004) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, Appellant. Decision Panganiban, J.
(G.R. No. 135981. Janauary 15, 2004) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, Appellant. Decision Panganiban, J.
The decretal
portion of the Decision reads:
[G.R. No. 135981. Janauary 15, 2004] WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered, the Court finds the accused,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant. Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide as
provided under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code as restored by Sec. 5, RA No.
DECISION 7659, and after finding treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance and none of
mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences the accused with the penalty of DEATH.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer for acquittal on a The Court likewise penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of
novel theory -- the battered woman syndrome (BWS), which allegedly constitutes self- fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as indemnity and another sum of
defense. Under the proven facts, however, she is not entitled to complete exoneration fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as moral damages.[2]
because there was no unlawful aggression -- no immediate and unexpected attack on The Information[3] charged appellant with parricide as follows:
her by her batterer-husband at the time she shot him.
Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete. That on or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay Bilwang, Municipality of
Isabel, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant constituted the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation,
a form of cumulative provocation that broke down her psychological resistance and self- did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound
control. This psychological paralysis she suffered diminished her will power, thereby one BEN GENOSA, her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon, which
entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the the accused had provided herself for the purpose, [causing] the following wounds, to
Revised Penal Code. wit:
In addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating circumstance of
having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and Cadaveric spasm.
obfuscation. The acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her
batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she was eight months pregnant with their child, Body on the 2nd stage of decomposition.
overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental state, which
overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn childs. Face, black, blownup & swollen w/ evident post-mortem lividity. Eyes
protruding from its sockets and tongue slightly protrudes out of the mouth.
Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances arising from BWS,
as well as the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she may now apply for and be Fracture, open, depressed, circular located at the occipital bone of the head,
released from custody on parole, because she has already served the minimum period of resulting [in] laceration of the brain, spontaneous rupture of the blood vessels
her penalty while under detention during the pendency of this case. on the posterior surface of the brain, laceration of the dura and meningeal
vessels producing severe intracranial hemorrhage.
The Case Blisters at both extrem[i]ties, anterior chest, posterior chest, trunk w/ shedding of the
For automatic review before this Court is the September 25, 1998 Decision[1] of the epidermis.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City (Branch 35) in Criminal Case No. 5016-0,
Abdomen distended w/ gas. Trunk bloated.
1
which caused his death.[4] appellant and her children rode the same bus to Ormoc. They had no conversation as
Joseph noticed that appellant did not want to talk to him.
With the assistance of her counsel,[5] appellant pleaded not guilty during her
arraignment on March 3, 1997.[6] In due course, she was tried for and convicted of
On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him about the foul odor
parricide.
emanating from his house being rented by Ben and appellant. Steban went there to find
The Facts out the cause of the stench but the house was locked from the inside. Since he did not
have a duplicate key with him, Steban destroyed the gate padlock with a borrowed steel
Version of the Prosecution saw. He was able to get inside through the kitchen door but only after destroying a
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the prosecutions version of window to reach a hook that locked it. Alone, Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom
the facts in this wise: where the offensive smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben lying
on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his briefs with injuries at
Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19, 1983 in Ormoc the back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the house and sent word to the
City. Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in their house at Isabel, Leyte. For a mother of Ben about his sons misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada Genosa, the mother
time, Bens younger brother, Alex, and his wife lived with them too. Sometime in 1995, of Ben, identified the dead body as that of [her] son.
however, appellant and Ben rented from Steban Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang,
Isabel, Leyte where they lived with their two children, namely: John Marben and Earl Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin, then assigned at the
Pierre. police station at Isabel, Leyte, received a report regarding the foul smell at the Genosas
rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares, SPO1 Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3
On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after receiving their Acodesin proceeded to the house and went inside the bedroom where they found the
salary. They each had two (2) bottles of beer before heading home. Arturo would pass dead body of Ben lying on his side wrapped with a bedsheet. There was blood at the
Bens house before reaching his. When they arrived at the house of Ben, he found out nape of Ben who only had his briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found in one corner at the side of
that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to look for him. Ben went inside his house, while an aparador a metal pipe about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning against a
Arturo went to a store across it, waiting until 9:00 in the evening for the masiao runner wall. The metal pipe measured three (3) feet and six (6) inches long with a diameter of
to place a bet. Arturo did not see appellant arrive but on his way home passing the side one and half (1 1/2) inches. It had an open end without a stop valve with a red stain at
of the Genosas rented house, he heard her say I wont hesitate to kill you to which Ben one end. The bedroom was not in disarray.
replied Why kill me when I am innocent? That was the last time Arturo saw Ben alive.
Arturo also noticed that since then, the Genosas rented house appeared uninhabited and About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its stench, had to be
was always closed. taken outside at the back of the house before the postmortem examination was
conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the presence of the police. A municipal health officer at
On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close friend and neighbor Isabel, Leyte responsible for medico-legal cases, Dr. Cerillo found that Ben had been
living about fifty (50) meters from her house, to look after her pig because she was dead for two to three days and his body was already decomposing. The postmortem
going to Cebu for a pregnancy check-up. Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell her examination of Dr. Cerillo yielded the findings quoted in the Information for parricide
motorcycle to their neighbor Ronnie Dayandayan who unfortunately had no money to later filed against appellant. She concluded that the cause of Bens death was
buy it. cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a
depressed fracture of the occipital [bone].
That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was waiting for a bus going
to Ormoc when he saw appellant going out of their house with her two kids in tow, each Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going home after work on
one carrying a bag, locking the gate and taking her children to the waiting area where he November 15, 1995, she got worried that her husband who was not home yet might
was. Joseph lived about fifty (50) meters behind the Genosas rented house. Joseph, have gone gambling since it was a payday. With her cousin Ecel Arao, appellant went to
2
look for Ben at the marketplace and taverns at Isabel, Leyte but did not find him there. 3. After their marriage, they lived first in the home of Bens parents, together with Bens
They found Ben drunk upon their return at the Genosas house. Ecel went home despite brother, Alex, in Isabel, Leyte. In the first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived
appellants request for her to sleep in their house. happily. But apparently, soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and their fights
would become violent.
Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even challenging her to a
fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead attended to their children who were doing 4. Bens brother, Alex, testified for the prosecution that he could not remember when
their homework. Apparently disappointed with her reaction, Ben switched off the light Ben and Marivic married. He said that when Ben and Marivic quarreled, generally when
and, with the use of a chopping knife, cut the television antenna or wire to keep her Ben would come home drunk, Marivic would inflict injuries on him. He said that in one
from watching television. According to appellant, Ben was about to attack her so she ran incident in 1993 he saw Marivic holding a kitchen knife after Ben had shouted for help
to the bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled her around. She fell on the as his left hand was covered with blood. Marivic left the house but after a week, she
side of the bed and screamed for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant returned apparently having asked for Bens forgiveness. In another incident in May 22,
packed his clothes because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed clothes upon his 1994, early morning, Alex and his father apparently rushed to Bens aid again and saw
return home, Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom blood from Bens forehead and Marivic holding an empty bottle. Ben and Marivic
towards a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her You might as well be killed so reconciled after Marivic had apparently again asked for Bens forgiveness.
nobody would nag me. Appellant testified that she was aware that there was a gun
inside the drawer but since Ben did not have the key to it, he got a three-inch long blade Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivics mother-in-law, testified too, saying that Ben and
cutter from his wallet. She however, smashed the arm of Ben with a pipe, causing him to Marivic married in 1986 or 1985 more or less here in Fatima, Ormoc City. She said as
drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant then smashed Ben at his nape with the pipe as the marriage went along, Marivic became already very demanding. Mrs. Iluminada
he was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom. Genosa said that after the birth of Marivics two sons, there were three (3)
misunderstandings. The first was when Marivic stabbed Ben with a table knife through
Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by shooting him. She his left arm; the second incident was on November 15, 1994, when Marivic struck
supposedly distorted the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben. He did not die on the Ben on the forehead using a sharp instrument until the eye was also affected. It was
spot, though, but in the bedroom.[7] (Citations omitted) wounded and also the ear and her husband went to Ben to help; and the third incident
was in 1995 when the couple had already transferred to the house in Bilwang and she
Version of the Defense saw that Bens hand was plastered as the bone cracked.
Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:
Both mother and son claimed they brought Ben to a Pasar clinic for medical
intervention.
1. Marivic and Ben Genosa were allegedly married on November 19, 1983. Prior to her
marriage, Marivic had graduated from San Carlos, Cebu City, obtaining a degree of
5. Arturo Basobas, a co-worker of Ben, testified that on November 15, 1995 After we
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and was working, at the time of her
collected our salary, we went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO. They stayed there for
husbands death, as a Secretary to the Port Managers in Ormoc City. The couple had
three (3) hours, after which they went to Uniloks and drank beer allegedly only two (2)
three (3) children: John Marben, Earl Pierre and Marie Bianca.
bottles each. After drinking they bought barbeque and went to the Genosa
residence. Marivic was not there. He stayed a while talking with Ben, after which he
2. Marivic and Ben had known each other since elementary school; they were neighbors went across the road to wait for the runner and the usher of the masiao game because
in Bilwang; they were classmates; and they were third degree cousins. Both sets of during that time, the hearing on masiao numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the
parents were against their relationship, but Ben was persistent and tried to stop other ushers and runners so that I can place my bet. On his way home at about 9:00 in the
suitors from courting her. Their closeness developed as he was her constant partner at evening, he heard the Genosas arguing. They were quarreling loudly. Outside their
fiestas. house was one Fredo who is used by Ben to feed his fighting cocks. Basobas testimony
3
on the root of the quarrel, conveniently overheard by him was Marivic saying I will with his both hands the neck of the accused, Marivic Genosa. He said after a while,
never hesitate to kill you, whilst Ben replied Why kill me when I am innocent. Basobas Marivic was able to extricate he[r]self and enter the room of the children. After that, he
thought they were joking. went back to work as he was to go fishing that evening. He returned at 8:00 the next
morning. (Again, please note that this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo
He did not hear them quarreling while he was across the road from the Genosa Basobas).
residence. Basobas admitted that he and Ben were always at the cockpits every
Saturday and Sunday. He claims that he once told Ben before when he was stricken with 7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former neighbor of the Genosas while they were living in
a bottle by Marivic Genosa that he should leave her and that Ben would always take her Isabel, Leyte. His house was located about fifty (50) meters from theirs. Marivic is his
back after she would leave him so many times. niece and he knew them to be living together for 13 or 14 years. He said the couple was
always quarreling. Marivic confided in him that Ben would pawn items and then would
Basobas could not remember when Marivic had hit Ben, but it was a long time that they use the money to gamble. One time, he went to their house and they were quarreling.
had been quarreling. He said Ben even had a wound on the right forehead. He had Ben was so angry, but would be pacified if somebody would come. He testified that
known the couple for only one (1) year. while Ben was alive he used to gamble and when he became drunk, he would go to our
house and he will say, Teody because that was what he used to call me, mokimas ta,
6. Marivic testified that after the first year of marriage, Ben became cruel to her and which means lets go and look for a whore. Mr. Sarabia further testified that Ben would
was a habitual drinker. She said he provoked her, he would slap her, sometimes he box his wife and I would see bruises and one time she ran to me, I noticed a wound (the
would pin her down on the bed, and sometimes beat her. witness pointed to his right breast) as according to her a knife was stricken to her. Mr.
Sarabia also said that once he saw Ben had been injured too. He said he voluntarily
These incidents happened several times and she would often run home to her parents, testified only that morning.
but Ben would follow her and seek her out, promising to change and would ask for her
forgiveness. She said after she would be beaten, she would seek medical help from Dr. 7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old student, who is a cousin of Marivic, testified that in
Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. Cerillo. These doctors would enter the injuries inflicted the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic went to her house and asked her help to
upon her by Ben into their reports. Marivic said Ben would beat her or quarrel with her look for Ben. They searched in the market place, several taverns and some other places,
every time he was drunk, at least three times a week. but could not find him. She accompanied Marivic home. Marivic wanted her to sleep
with her in the Genosa house because she might be battered by her husband. When they
7. In her defense, witnesses who were not so closely related to Marivic, testified as to got to the Genosa house at about 7:00 in the evening, Miss Arano said that her husband
the abuse and violence she received at the hands of Ben. was already there and was drunk. Miss Arano knew he was drunk because of his
staggering walking and I can also detect his face. Marivic entered the house and she
7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman, who was a [neighbor] of the Genosas, testified that heard them quarrel noisily. (Again, please note that this is the same night as that
on November 15, 1995, he overheard a quarrel between Ben and Marivic. Marivic was testified to by Arturo Basobas) Miss Arano testified that this was not the first time
shouting for help and through the open jalousies, he saw the spouses grappling with Marivic had asked her to sleep in the house as Marivic would be afraid every time her
each other. Ben had Marivic in a choke hold. He did not do anything, but had come husband would come home drunk. At one time when she did sleep over, she was
voluntarily to testify. (Please note this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo awakened at 10:00 in the evening when Ben arrived because the couple were very noisy
Busabos.[8]) in the sala and I had heard something was broken like a vase. She said Marivic ran into
her room and they locked the door. When Ben couldnt get in he got a chair and a knife
7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a fisherman, and the brother of Mr. Joe Barrientos, and showed us the knife through the window grill and he scared us. She said that
testified that he heard his neighbor Marivic shouting on the night of November 15, Marivic shouted for help, but no one came. On cross-examination, she said that when
1995. He peeped through the window of his hut which is located beside the Genosa she left Marivics house on November 15, 1995, the couple were still quarreling.
house and saw the spouses grappling with each other then Ben Genosa was holding
4
7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician testified that he and Marivic were co-employees at On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she shot Ben with a gun; she said that he died in
PHILPHOS, Isabel, Leyte. Marivic was his patient many times and had also received the bedroom; that their quarrels could be heard by anyone passing their house; that
treatment from other doctors. Dr. Caing testified that from July 6, 1989 until November Basobas lied in his testimony; that she left for Manila the next day, November 16, 1995;
9, 1995, there were six (6) episodes of physical injuries inflicted upon Marivic. These that she did not bother anyone in Manila, rented herself a room, and got herself a job as
injuries were reported in his Out-Patient Chart at the PHILPHOS Hospital. The a field researcher under the alias Marvelous Isidro; she did not tell anyone that she was
prosecution admitted the qualifications of Dr. Caing and considered him an expert leaving Leyte, she just wanted to have a safe delivery of her baby; and that she was
witness. arrested in San Pablo, Laguna.
xxxxxxxxx Answering questions from the Court, Marivic said that she threw the gun away; that she
did not know what happened to the pipe she used to smash him once; that she was
Dr. Caings clinical history of the tension headache and hypertention of Marivic on wounded by Ben on her wrist with the bolo; and that two (2) hours after she was
twenty-three (23) separate occasions was marked at Exhibits 2 and 2-B. The OPD Chart whirled by Ben, he kicked her ass and dragged her towards the drawer when he saw
of Marivic at the Philphos Clinic which reflected all the consultations made by Marivic that she had packed his things.
and the six (6) incidents of physical injuries reported was marked as Exhibit 3.
9. The body of Ben Genosa was found on November 18, 1995 after an investigation was
On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that he is not a psychiatrist, he could not say made of the foul odor emitting from the Genosa residence. This fact was testified to by
whether the injuries were directly related to the crime committed. He said it is only a all the prosecution witnesses and some defense witnesses during the trial.
psychiatrist who is qualified to examine the psychological make-up of the patient,
whether she is capable of committing a crime or not. 10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a physician, was the Municipal Health Officer of Isabel, Leyte
at the time of the incident, and among her responsibilities as such was to take charge of
7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay captain in the place where the Genosas resided, all medico-legal cases, such as the examination of cadavers and the autopsy of
testified that about two (2) months before Ben died, Marivic went to his office past 8:00 cadavers. Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic pathologist. She merely took the medical board
in the evening. She sought his help to settle or confront the Genosa couple who were exams and passed in 1986. She was called by the police to go to the Genosa residence
experiencing family troubles. He told Marivic to return in the morning, but he did not and when she got there, she saw some police officer and neighbor around. She saw Ben
hear from her again and assumed that they might have settled with each other or they Genosa, covered by a blanket, lying in a semi-prone position with his back to the door.
might have forgiven with each other. He was wearing only a brief.
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it was her Dra. Cerillo said that there is only one injury and that is the injury involving the skeletal
husband who began the provocation. Marivic said she was frightened that her husband area of the head which she described as a fracture. And that based on her examination,
would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, Ben had been dead 2 or 3 days. Dra. Cerillo did not testify as to what caused his death.
Marivic had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from
eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on December 1, 1995. Dra. Cerillo was not cross-examined by defense counsel.
Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least 11. The Information, dated November 14, 1996, filed against Marivic Genosa charged
five (5) times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. Marivic her with the crime of PARRICIDE committed with intent to kill, with treachery and
said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was evidence premeditation, x x x wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and
because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu x x x Rubillos.
5
wound x x x her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon x x x which death wound (as culled from the post-mortem findings, Exhibit A) is more akin to a
caused his death. gunshot wound than a beating with a lead pipe.
12. Trial took place on 7 and 14 April 1997, 14 May 1997, 21 July 1997, 17, 22 and 23 17. In a RESOLUTION dated 29 September 2000, the Honorable Court partly granted
September 1997, 12 November 1997, 15 and 16 December 1997, 22 May 1998, and 5 Marivics URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION and remanded the case to the trial court for the
and 6 August 1998. reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered woman
syndrome plea, within ninety (90) days from notice, and, thereafter to forthwith report
13. On 23 September 1998, or only fifty (50) days from the day of the last trial date, the to this Court the proceedings taken, together with the copies of the TSN and relevant
Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City, rendered a documentary evidence, if any, submitted.
JUDGMENT finding Marivic guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide,
and further found treachery as an aggravating circumstance, thus sentencing her to the 18. On 15 January 2001, Dra. Natividad A. Dayan appeared and testified before the Hon.
ultimate penalty of DEATH. Fortunito L. Madrona, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.
14. The case was elevated to this Honorable Court upon automatic review and, under Immediately before Dra. Dayan was sworn, the Court a quo asked if she had interviewed
date of 24 January 2000, Marivics trial lawyer, Atty. Gil Marvel P. Tabucanon, filed a Marivic Genosa. Dra. Dayan informed the Court that interviews were done at the Penal
Motion to Withdraw as counsel, attaching thereto, as a precautionary measure, two (2) Institution in 1999, but that the clinical interviews and psychological assessment were
drafts of Appellants Briefs he had prepared for Marivic which, for reasons of her own, done at her clinic.
were not conformed to by her.
Dra. Dayan testified that she has been a clinical psychologist for twenty (20) years with
The Honorable Court allowed the withdrawal of Atty. Tabucanon and permitted the her own private clinic and connected presently to the De La Salle University as a
entry of appearance of undersigned counsel. professor. Before this, she was the Head of the Psychology Department of the
Assumption College; a member of the faculty of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila
15. Without the knowledge of counsel, Marivic Genosa wrote a letter dated 20 January University and St. Josephs College; and was the counseling psychologist of the National
2000, to the Chief Justice, coursing the same through Atty. Teresita G. Dimaisip, Deputy Defense College. She has an AB in Psychology from the University of the Philippines, a
Clerk of Court of Chief Judicial Records Office, wherein she submitted her Brief without Master of Arts in Clinical [Counseling], Psychology from the Ateneo, and a PhD from the
counsels to the Court. U.P. She was the past president of the Psychological Association of the Philippines and is
a member of the American Psychological Association. She is the secretary of the
This letter was stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 4 February 2000. International Council of Psychologists from about 68 countries; a member of the
Forensic Psychology Association; and a member of the ASEAN [Counseling] Association.
16. In the meantime, under date of 17 February 2000, and stamp-received by the She is actively involved with the Philippine Judicial Academy, recently lecturing on the
Honorable Court on 19 February 2000, undersigned counsel filed an URGENT OMNIBUS socio-demographic and psychological profile of families involved in domestic violence
MOTION praying that the Honorable Court allow the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the and nullity cases. She was with the Davide Commission doing research about Military
re-examination of the cause of his death; allow the examination of Marivic Genosa by Psychology. She has written a book entitled Energy Global Psychology (together with
qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she Drs. Allan Tan and Allan Bernardo). The Genosa case is the first time she has testified as
killed her husband; and finally, to allow a partial re-opening of the case a quo to take the an expert on battered women as this is the first case of that nature.
testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists.
Dra. Dayan testified that for the research she conducted, on the socio-demographic and
Attached to the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION was a letter of Dr. Raquel Fortun, then the psychological profile of families involved in domestic violence, and nullity cases, she
only qualified forensic pathologist in the country, who opined that the description of the looked at about 500 cases over a period of ten (10) years and discovered that there are
6
lots of variables that cause all of this marital conflicts, from domestic violence to long lasting and even would cause hospitalization on the victim and even death on the
infidelity, to psychiatric disorder. victim.
1. The trial court gravely erred in promulgating an obviously hasty decision without
Ruling of the Trial Court reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense.
Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave credence to
the prosecution evidence that appellant had killed the deceased while he was in bed 2. The trial court gravely erred in finding as a fact that Ben and Marivic Genosa were
sleeping. Further, the trial court appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of legally married and that she was therefore liable for parricide.
treachery, because Ben Genosa was supposedly defenseless when he was killed -- lying
in bed asleep when Marivic smashed him with a pipe at the back of his head. 3. The trial court gravely erred finding the cause of death to be by beating with a pipe.
The capital penalty having been imposed, the case was elevated to this Court for
4. The trial court gravely erred in ignoring and disregarding evidence adduced from
automatic review.
impartial and unbiased witnesses that Ben Genosa was a drunk, a gambler, a womanizer
and wife-beater; and further gravely erred in concluding that Ben Genosa was a
battered husband.
Supervening Circumstances
On February 19, 2000, appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that this 5. The trial court gravely erred in not requiring testimony from the children of Marivic
Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the reexamination of the cause of his Genosa.
death; (2) the examination of appellant by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to
determine her state of mind at the time she had killed her spouse; and (3) the inclusion 6. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that Marivics flight to Manila and her
of the said experts reports in the records of the case for purposes of the automatic subsequent apologies were indicia of guilt, instead of a clear attempt to save the life of
review or, in the alternative, a partial reopening of the case for the lower court to admit her unborn child.
the experts testimonies.
7. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that there was an aggravating
On September 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution granting in part appellants
circumstance of treachery.
Motion, remanding the case to the trial court for the reception of expert psychological
and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered woman syndrome plea; and requiring the
8. The trial court gravely erred in refusing to re-evaluate the traditional elements in
lower court to report thereafter to this Court the proceedings taken as well as to submit
determining the existence of self-defense and defense of foetus in this case, thereby
copies of the TSN and additional evidence, if any.
erroneously convicting Marivic Genosa of the crime of parricide and condemning her to
Acting on the Courts Resolution, the trial judge authorized the examination of the ultimate penalty of death.[13]
Marivic by two clinical psychologists, Drs. Natividad Dayan[10] and Alfredo
In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1) whether appellant acted
Pajarillo,[11] supposedly experts on domestic violence. Their testimonies, along with
in self-defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2) whether treachery attended the
their documentary evidence, were then presented to and admitted by the lower court
killing of Ben Genosa.
before finally being submitted to this Court to form part of the records of the case.[12]
9
The Courts Ruling The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the
case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and
The appeal is partly meritorious.
the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the absence of a marriage certificate,
however, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by the trial court if
such proof is not objected to.
Collateral Factual Issues
Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the brother of
The first six assigned errors raised by appellant are factual in nature, if not appellants deceased spouse -- attested in court that Ben had been married to
collateral to the resolution of the principal issues. As consistently held by this Court, the Marivic.[17] The defense raised no objection to these testimonies. Moreover, during her
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are direct examination, appellant herself made a judicial admission of her marriage to
entitled to a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of Ben.[18] Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party
any showing that the trial judge gravely abused his discretion or overlooked, making it, except only when there is a showing that (1) the admission was made
misunderstood or misapplied material facts or circumstances of weight and substance through a palpable mistake, or (2) no admission was in fact made.[19] Other than merely
that could affect the outcome of the case.[14] attacking the non-presentation of the marriage contract, the defense offered no proof
In appellants first six assigned items, we find no grave abuse of discretion, that the admission made by appellant in court as to the fact of her marriage to the
reversible error or misappreciation of material facts that would reverse or modify the deceased was made through a palpable mistake.
trial courts disposition of the case. In any event, we will now briefly dispose of these Third, under the circumstances of this case, the specific or direct cause of Bens
alleged errors of the trial court. death -- whether by a gunshot or by beating with a pipe -- has no legal consequence. As
First, we do not agree that the lower court promulgated an obviously hasty decision the Court elucidated in its September 29, 2000 Resolution, [c]onsidering that the
without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense. We note that in his 17- appellant has admitted the fact of killing her husband and the acts of hitting his nape
page Decision, Judge Fortunito L. Madrona summarized the testimonies of both the with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the back of his head, the Court believes that
prosecution and the defense witnesses and -- on the basis of those and of the exhumation is unnecessary, if not immaterial, to determine which of said acts actually
documentary evidence on record -- made his evaluation, findings and conclusions. He caused the victims death. Determining which of these admitted acts caused the death is
wrote a 3-page discourse assessing the testimony and the self-defense theory of the not dispositive of the guilt or defense of appellant.
accused. While she, or even this Court, may not agree with the trial judges conclusions, Fourth, we cannot fault the trial court for not fully appreciating evidence that Ben was a
we cannot peremptorily conclude, absent substantial evidence, that he failed to drunk, gambler, womanizer and wife-beater. Until this case came to us for automatic
reflect on the evidence presented. review, appellant had not raised the novel defense of battered woman syndrome, for which
Neither do we find the appealed Decision to have been made in an obviously hasty such evidence may have been relevant. Her theory of self-defense was then the crucial issue
manner. The Information had been filed with the lower court on November 14, 1996. before the trial court. As will be discussed shortly, the legal requisites of self-defense under
Thereafter, trial began and at least 13 hearings were held for over a year. It took the prevailing jurisprudence ostensibly appear inconsistent with the surrounding facts that led
trial judge about two months from the conclusion of trial to promulgate his judgment. to the death of the victim. Hence, his personal character, especially his past behavior, did not
That he conducted the trial and resolved the case with dispatch should not be taken constitute vital evidence at the time.
against him, much less used to condemn him for being unduly hasty. If at all, the Fifth, the trial court surely committed no error in not requiring testimony from
dispatch with which he handled the case should be lauded. In any case, we find his appellants children. As correctly elucidated by the solicitor general, all criminal actions
actions in substantial compliance with his constitutional obligation.[15] are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor, in whom lies
Second, the lower court did not err in finding as a fact that Ben Genosa and the discretion to determine which witnesses and evidence are necessary to
appellant had been legally married, despite the non-presentation of their marriage present.[20] As the former further points out, neither the trial court nor the prosecution
contract. In People v. Malabago,[16] this Court held:
10
prevented appellant from presenting her children as witnesses. Thus, she cannot now dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the
fault the lower court for not requiring them to testify. batterers actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve.[26]
Finally, merely collateral or corroborative is the matter of whether the flight of More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called
Marivic to Manila and her subsequent apologies to her brother-in-law are indicia of her cycle of violence,[27] which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the
guilt or are attempts to save the life of her unborn child. Any reversible error as to the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.[28]
trial courts appreciation of these circumstances has little bearing on the final resolution
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or
of the case.
slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to
First Legal Issue: pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out
Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus of his way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to
her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence
Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability, invokes self- exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her
defense and/or defense of her unborn child. When the accused admits killing the victim, placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in
it is incumbent upon her to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and the first place.
convincing evidence.[21] Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense (and However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate him are not
similarly, defense of a stranger or third person) shifts the burden of proof from the usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner senses
prosecution to the defense.[22] the imminent loss of control and the growing tension and despair. Exhausted from the
persistent stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally. But the more she
becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and
The Battered Woman Syndrome abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence spirals out of control and leads
to an acute battering incident.[29]
In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the battered woman
syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the concept has been recognized in The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality,
foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at the least, incomplete self- destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as
defense.[23] By appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the
syndrome, foreign courts convey their understanding of the justifiably fearful state of batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time of
mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and controlled over a period of time.[24] its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes
that she cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her
A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
condition.
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain,
wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order although she may later clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face
to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger
least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that it is futile to fight back.
occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent
woman.[25] bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt.[30]
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-esteem, The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident
traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. On the one
hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He
11
knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her Q What did you do when these things happen to you?
forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other hand, the battered
A I went away to my mother and I ran to my father and we separate each other.
woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that her
partner will change for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real Q What was the action of Ben Genosa towards you leaving home?
person whom she loves.
A He is following me, after that he sought after me.
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional
stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels responsible for his Q What will happen when he follow you?
well-being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his reforming, or seeking or A He said he changed, he asked for forgiveness and I was convinced and after
receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if she remains with him. Generally, that I go to him and he said sorry.
only after she leaves him does he seek professional help as a way of getting her back.
Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly Q During those times that you were the recipient of such cruelty and abusive
tormented psychologically. behavior by your husband, were you able to see a doctor?
History of Abuse Q You said that you saw a doctor in relation to your injuries?
in the Present Case A Yes, sir.
To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the defense presented Q Who inflicted these injuries?
several witnesses. She herself described her heart-rending experience as follows:
A Of course my husband.
ATTY. TABUCANON
Q You mean Ben Genosa?
Q How did you describe your marriage with Ben Genosa?
A Yes, sir.
A In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the subsequent year he was
cruel to me and a behavior of habitual drinker. xxxxxxxxx
Q You said that in the subsequent year of your marriage, your husband was [Court] /to the witness
abusive to you and cruel. In what way was this abusive and cruelty
manifested to you? Q How frequent was the alleged cruelty that you said?
A He always provoke me in everything, he always slap me and sometimes he A Everytime he got drunk.
pinned me down on the bed and sometimes beat me. Q No, from the time that you said the cruelty or the infliction of injury inflicted
Q How many times did this happen? on your occurred, after your marriage, from that time on, how frequent
was the occurrence?
A Several times already.
12
A Everytime he got drunk. Q Did you actually physical examine the accused?
Q Is it daily, weekly, monthly or how many times in a month or in a week? A Yes, sir.
A Three times a week. Q Now, going to your finding no. 3 where you were the one who attended the
patient. What do you mean by abrasion furuncle left axilla?
Q Do you mean three times a week he would beat you?
A Abrasion is a skin wound usually when it comes in contact with something
A Not necessarily that he would beat me but sometimes he will just quarrel
rough substance if force is applied.
me. [32]
Q What is meant by furuncle axilla?
Referring to his Out-Patient Chart[33] on Marivic Genosa at the Philphos Hospital,
Dr. Dino D. Caing bolstered her foregoing testimony on chronic battery in this manner: A It is secondary of the light infection over the abrasion.
Q So, do you have a summary of those six (6) incidents which are found in the Q What is meant by pain mastitis secondary to trauma?
chart of your clinic?
A So, in this 4th episode of physical injuries there is an inflammation of left
A Yes, sir. breast. So, [pain] meaning there is tenderness. When your breast is
traumatized, there is tenderness pain.
Q Who prepared the list of six (6) incidents, Doctor?
Q So, these are objective physical injuries. Doctor?
A I did.
Q Will you please read the physical findings together with the dates for the xxxxxxxxx
record.
Q Were you able to talk with the patient?
A 1. May 12, 1990 - physical findings are as follows: Hematoma (R) lower
A Yes, sir.
eyelid and redness of eye. Attending physician: Dr. Lucero;
Q What did she tell you?
2. March 10, 1992 - Contusion-Hematoma (L) lower arbital area, pain and
contusion (R) breast. Attending physician: Dr. Canora; A As a doctor-patient relationship, we need to know the cause of these injuries.
And she told me that it was done to her by her husband.
3. March 26, 1993 - Abrasion, Furuncle (L) Axilla;
Q You mean, Ben Genosa?
4. August 1, 1994 - Pain, mastitis (L) breast, 2o to trauma. Attending
physician: Dr. Caing; A Yes, sir.
5. April 17, 1995 - Trauma, tenderness (R) Shoulder. Attending physician:
Dr. Canora; and xxxxxxxxx
6. June 5, 1995 - Swelling Abrasion (L) leg, multiple contusion Pregnancy. ATTY. TABUCANON:
Attending physician: Dr. Canora. Q By the way Doctor, were you able to physical examine the accused sometime
Q Among the findings, there were two (2) incidents wherein you were the in the month of November, 1995 when this incident happened?
attending physician, is that correct? A As per record, yes.
A Yes, sir. Q What was the date?
13
A It was on November 6, 1995. Q For what?
Q So, did you actually see the accused physically? A Tension headache.
A Yes, sir. Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that the patient had
hypertension?
Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable Court, was the
patient pregnant? A The patient definitely had hypertension. It was refractory to our treatment.
She does not response when the medication was given to her, because
A Yes, sir.
tension headache is more or less stress related and emotional in nature.
Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of pregnancy was she?
Q What did you deduce of tension headache when you said is emotional in
A Eight (8) months pregnant. nature?
Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy? A From what I deduced as part of our physical examination of the patient is the
family history in line of giving the root cause of what is causing this
A Yes, sir. disease. So, from the moment you ask to the patient all comes from the
Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an examination about domestic problem.
her pregnancy or for some other findings? Q You mean problem in her household?
A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which complicates her A Probably.
pregnancy.
Q Can family trouble cause elevation of blood pressure, Doctor?
Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined?
A Yes, if it is emotionally related and stressful it can cause increases in
A Yes, sir. hypertension which is unfortunately does not response to the medication.
Q For how many days? Q In November 6, 1995, the date of the incident, did you take the blood
A One day. pressure of the accused?
What is this all about? Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of the Genosas in
Isabel, Leyte, testified that he had seen the couple quarreling several times; and that on
A Because she has this problem of tension headache secondary to some occasions Marivic would run to him with bruises, confiding that the injuries were
hypertension and I think I have a record here, also the same period from inflicted upon her by Ben.[35]
1989 to 1995, she had a consultation for twenty-three (23) times.
14
Ecel Arano also testified[36] that for a number of times she had been asked by Q By the way, where was your conjugal residence situated this time?
Marivic to sleep at the Genosa house, because the latter feared that Ben would come
A Bilwang.
home drunk and hurt her. On one occasion that Ecel did sleep over, she was awakened
about ten oclock at night, because the couple were very noisy and I heard something Q Is this your house or you are renting?
was broken like a vase. Then Marivic came running into Ecels room and locked the door.
Ben showed up by the window grill atop a chair, scaring them with a knife. A Renting.
On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again asked her help -- this time to Q What time were you able to come back in your residence at Bilwang?
find Ben -- but they were unable to. They returned to the Genosa home, where they A I went back around almost 8:00 oclock.
found him already drunk. Again afraid that he might hurt her, Marivic asked her to sleep
at their house. Seeing his state of drunkenness, Ecel hesitated; and when she heard the Q What happened when you arrived in your residence?
couple start arguing, she decided to leave. A When I arrived home with my cousin Ecel whom I requested to sleep with
On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben Genosa, at least three other me at that time because I had fears that he was again drunk and I was
witnesses saw or heard the couple quarreling.[37] Marivic relates in detail the following worried that he would again beat me so I requested my cousin to sleep
backdrop of the fateful night when life was snuffed out of him, showing in the process a with me, but she resisted because she had fears that the same thing will
vivid picture of his cruelty towards her: happen again last year.
ATTY. TABUCANON: Q Who was this cousin of yours who you requested to sleep with you?
Q Please tell this Court, can you recall the incident in November 15, 1995 in the A Ecel Arao, the one who testified.
evening? Q Did Ecel sleep with you in your house on that evening?
A Whole morning and in the afternoon, I was in the office working then after A No, because she expressed fears, she said her father would not allow her
office hours, I boarded the service bus and went to Bilwang. When I because of Ben.
reached Bilwang, I immediately asked my son, where was his father, then
my second child said, he was not home yet. I was worried because that Q During this period November 15, 1995, were you pregnant?
was payday, I was anticipating that he was gambling. So while waiting for
A Yes, 8 months.
him, my eldest son arrived from school, I prepared dinner for my children.
Q How advance was your pregnancy?
Q This is evening of November 15, 1995?
A Eight (8) months.
A Yes, sir.
Q Was the baby subsequently born?
Q What time did Ben Genosa arrive?
A Yes, sir.
A When he arrived, I was not there, I was in Isabel looking for him.
Q Whats the name of the baby you were carrying at that time?
Q So when he arrived you were in Isabel looking for him?
A Marie Bianca.
A Yes, sir.
Q What time were you able to meet personally your husband?
Q Did you come back to your house?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
15
Q What time? A For chopping meat.
A When I arrived home, he was there already in his usual behavior. Q You said the children were scared, what else happened as Ben was carrying
that bolo?
Q Will you tell this Court what was his disposition?
A He was about to attack me so I run to the room.
A He was drunk again, he was yelling in his usual unruly behavior.
Q What do you mean that he was about to attack you?
Q What was he yelling all about?
A When I attempt to run he held my hands and he whirled me and I fell to the
A His usual attitude when he got drunk.
bedside.
Q You said that when you arrived, he was drunk and yelling at you? What else
Q So when he whirled you, what happened to you?
did he do if any?
A I screamed for help and then he left.
A He is nagging at me for following him and he dared me to quarrel him.
Q You said earlier that he whirled you and you fell on the bedside?
Q What was the cause of his nagging or quarreling at you if you know?
A Yes, sir.
A He was angry at me because I was following x x x him, looking for him. I was
just worried he might be overly drunk and he would beat me again. Q You screamed for help and he left, do you know where he was going?
Q You said that he was yelling at you, what else, did he do to you if any? A Outside perhaps to drink more.
A He was nagging at me at that time and I just ignore him because I want to Q When he left what did you do in that particular time?
avoid trouble for fear that he will beat me again. Perhaps he was
A I packed all his clothes.
disappointed because I just ignore him of his provocation and he switch
off the light and I said to him, why did you switch off the light when the Q What was your reason in packing his clothes?
children were there. At that time I was also attending to my children who
were doing their assignments. He was angry with me for not answering A I wanted him to leave us.
his challenge, so he went to the kitchen and [got] a bolo and cut the Q During this time, where were your children, what were their reactions?
antenna wire to stop me from watching television.
A After a couple of hours, he went back again and he got angry with me for
Q What did he do with the bolo? packing his clothes, then he dragged me again of the bedroom holding my
A He cut the antenna wire to keep me from watching T.V. neck.
Q What else happened after he cut the wire? Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged you? How did
he drag you?
A He switch off the light and the children were shouting because they were
scared and he was already holding the bolo. COURT INTERPRETER:
Q How do you described this bolo? The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed forcibly
in her front neck)
A 1 1/2 feet.
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
Q What was the bolo used for usually?
ATTY. TABUCANON:
16
Q Where did he bring you? A Outside.
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he kept on Q In what part of the house?
shouting at me that you might as well be killed so there will be nobody to
A Dining.
nag me.
Q Where were the children during that time?
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
A My children were already asleep.
A Yes, sir.
Q You mean they were inside the room?
Q What is there in the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
A I was aware that it was a gun.
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please describe
COURT INTERPRETER:
this blade about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
(At this juncture the witness started crying).
A Three (3) inches long and 1/2 inch wide.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Is it a flexible blade?
Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
A Its a cutter.
A Yes, sir.
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the drawer but
Q How did he do it?
he could not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled his
wallet which contained a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that A He wanted to cut my throat.
he was going to kill me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the
blade fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe about Q With the same blade?
that long, and when he was about to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me. [38]
smashed him then I ran to the other room, and on that very moment
everything on my mind was to pity on myself, then the feeling I had on In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to testify as an expert
that very moment was the same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, witness to assist it in understanding the psyche of a battered person. She had met with
I was about to vomit. Marivic Genosa for five sessions totaling about seventeen hours. Based on their talks,
the former briefly related the latters ordeal to the court a quo as follows:
COURT INTERPRETER:
Q: What can you say, that you found Marivic as a battered wife? Could you in
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely). laymans term describe to this Court what her life was like as said to you?
xxxxxxxxx A: What I remember happened then was it was more than ten years, that she
was suffering emotional anguish. There were a lot of instances of abuses,
ATTY. TABUCANON: to emotional abuse, to verbal abuse and to physical abuse. The husband
Q Talking of drawer, is this drawer outside your room? had a very meager income, she was the one who was practically the bread
earner of the family. The husband was involved in a lot of vices, going out
17
with barkadas, drinking, even womanizing being involved in cockfight and Q Did she not inform you that there was an instance that she stayed in a hotel
going home very angry and which will trigger a lot of physical abuse. She in Ormoc where her husband followed her and battered [her] several
also had the experience a lot of taunting from the husband for the reason times in that room?
that the husband even accused her of infidelity, the husband was saying
A She told me about that.
that the child she was carrying was not his own. So she was very angry,
she was at the same time very depressed because she was also aware, Q Did she inform you in what hotel in Ormoc?
almost like living in purgatory or even hell when it was happening day in
and day out. [39] A Sir, I could not remember but I was told that she was battered in that room.
In cross-examining Dra. Dayan, the public prosecutor not merely elicited, but Q Several times in that room?
wittingly or unwittingly put forward, additional supporting evidence as shown below: A Yes, sir. What I remember was that there is no problem about being battered,
Q In your first encounter with the appellant in this case in 1999, where you it really happened.
talked to her about three hours, what was the most relevant information Q Being an expert witness, our jurisprudence is not complete on saying this
did you gather? matter. I think that is the first time that we have this in the Philippines,
A The most relevant information was the tragedy that happened. The most what is your opinion?
important information were escalating abuses that she had experienced A Sir, my opinion is, she is really a battered wife and in this kind happened, it
during her marital life. was really a self-defense. I also believe that there had been provocation
Q Before you met her in 1999 for three hours, we presume that you already and I also believe that she became a disordered person. She had to suffer
knew of the facts of the case or at least you have substantial knowledge of anxiety reaction because of all the battering that happened and so she
the facts of the case? became an abnormal person who had lost shes not during the time and
that is why it happened because of all the physical battering, emotional
A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not know whether I can consider battering, all the psychological abuses that she had experienced from her
them as substantial. husband.
xxxxxxxxx Q I do believe that she is a battered wife. Was she extremely battered?
Q Did you gather an information from Marivic that on the side of her husband A Sir, it is an extreme form of battering. Yes.[40]
they were fond of battering their wives? Parenthetically, the credibility of appellant was demonstrated as follows:
A I also heard that from her? Q And you also said that you administered [the] objective personality test,
Q You heard that from her? what x x x [is this] all about?
A Yes, sir. A The objective personality test is the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. The
purpose of that test is to find out about the lying prone[ne]ss of the
Q Did you ask for a complete example who are the relatives of her husband person.
that were fond of battering their wives?
Q What do you mean by that?
A What I remember that there were brothers of her husband who are also
battering their wives. A Meaning, am I dealing with a client who is telling me the truth, or is she
someone who can exaggerate or x x x [will] tell a lie[?]
18
Q And what did you discover on the basis of this objective personality test? hospitalization? We would expect the woman to pack her bags and go. Where is her self-
respect? Why does she not cut loose and make a new life for herself? Such is the
A She was a person who passed the honesty test. Meaning she is a person that I
reaction of the average person confronted with the so-called battered wife syndrome.[44]
can trust. That the data that Im gathering from her are the truth.[41]
To understand the syndrome properly, however, ones viewpoint should not be
The other expert witness presented by the defense, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, testified
drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person. What goes on in the mind of a
on his Psychiatric Report,[42] which was based on his interview and examination of
person who has been subjected to repeated, severe beatings may not be consistent with
Marivic Genosa. The Report said that during the first three years of her marriage to Ben,
-- nay, comprehensible to -- those who have not been through a similar experience.
everything looked good -- the atmosphere was fine, normal and happy -- until Ben
Expert opinion is essential to clarify and refute common myths and misconceptions
started to be attracted to other girls and was also enticed in[to] gambling[,] especially
about battered women.[45]
cockfighting. x x x. At the same time Ben was often joining his barkada in drinking
sprees. The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her research on
domestic violence, has had a significant impact in the United States and the United
The drinking sprees of Ben greatly changed the attitude he showed toward his
Kingdom on the treatment and prosecution of cases, in which a battered woman is
family, particularly to his wife. The Report continued: At first, it was verbal and
charged with the killing of her violent partner. The psychologist explains that the
emotional abuses but as time passed, he became physically abusive. Marivic claimed
cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon the battered woman immobilizes the
that the viciousness of her husband was progressive every time he got drunk. It was a
latters ability to act decisively in her own interests, making her feel trapped in the
painful ordeal Marivic had to anticipate whenever she suspected that her husband went
relationship with no means of escape.[46] In her years of research, Dr. Walker found that
for a drinking [spree]. They had been married for twelve years[;] and practically more
the abuse often escalates at the point of separation and battered women are in greater
than eight years, she was battered and maltreated relentlessly and mercilessly by her
danger of dying then.[47]
husband whenever he was drunk.
Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that the battered woman
Marivic sought the help of her mother-in-law, but her efforts were in vain. Further
usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has x x x self-defeating and self-sacrificing
quoting from the Report, [s]he also sought the advice and help of close relatives and
characteristics. x x x [W]hen the violence would happen, they usually think that they
well-meaning friends in spite of her feeling ashamed of what was happening to her. But
provoke[d] it, that they were the one[s] who precipitated the violence[; that] they
incessant battering became more and more frequent and more severe. x x x.[43]
provoke[d] their spouse to be physically, verbally and even sexually abusive to them.[48]
From the totality of evidence presented, there is indeed no doubt in the Courts
According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a battered woman does not
mind that Appellant Marivic Genosa was a severely abused person.
readily leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self-blame and guilt arising from the latters
belief that she provoked the violence, that she has an obligation to keep the family intact
at all cost for the sake of their children, and that she is the only hope for her spouse to
Effect of Battery on Appellant change.[49]
Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused woman, her The testimony of another expert witness, Dr. Pajarillo, is also helpful. He had
state of mind metamorphoses. In determining her state of mind, we cannot rely merely previously testified in suits involving violent family relations, having evaluated probably
on the judgment of an ordinary, reasonable person who is evaluating the events ten to twenty thousand violent family disputes within the Armed Forces of the
immediately surrounding the incident. A Canadian court has aptly pointed out that Philippines, wherein such cases abounded. As a result of his experience with domestic
expert evidence on the psychological effect of battering on wives and common law violence cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office in Quezon City. As
partners are both relevant and necessary. How can the mental state of the appellant be such, he got involved in about forty (40) cases of severe domestic violence, in which the
appreciated without it? The average member of the public may ask: Why would a physical abuse on the woman would sometimes even lead to her loss of
woman put up with this kind of treatment? Why should she continue to live with such a consciousness.[50]
man? How could she love a partner who beat her to the point of requiring
19
Dr. Pajarillo explained that overwhelming brutality, trauma could result in words, she failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had
posttraumatic stress disorder, a form of anxiety neurosis or neurologic gone through a similar pattern.
anxietism.[51] After being repeatedly and severely abused, battered persons may believe
How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build up prior to acute
that they are essentially helpless, lacking power to change their situation. x x x [A]cute
battering? How did Marivic normally respond to Bens relatively minor abuses? What
battering incidents can have the effect of stimulating the development of coping
means did she employ to try to prevent the situation from developing into the next
responses to the trauma at the expense of the victims ability to muster an active
(more violent) stage?
response to try to escape further trauma. Furthermore, x x x the victim ceases to believe
that anything she can do will have a predictable positive effect.[52] Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the
cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run away to her mothers or fathers
A study[53] conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the University of
house;[58] that Ben would seek her out, ask for her forgiveness and promise to change;
Pennsylvania, found that even if a person has control over a situation, but believes that
and that believing his words, she would return to their common abode.
she does not, she will be more likely to respond to that situation with coping responses
rather than trying to escape. He said that it was the cognitive aspect -- the individuals Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent incidents between her and her
thoughts -- that proved all-important. He referred to this phenomenon as learned spouse? Did she believe that she was the only hope for Ben to reform? And that she was
helplessness. [T]he truth or facts of a situation turn out to be less important than the the sole support of his emotional stability and well-being? Conversely, how dependent
individuals set of beliefs or perceptions concerning the situation. Battered women dont was she on him? Did she feel helpless and trapped in their relationship? Did both of
attempt to leave the battering situation, even when it may seem to outsiders that escape them regard death as preferable to separation?
is possible, because they cannot predict their own safety; they believe that nothing they
or anyone else does will alter their terrible circumstances.[54] In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself her factual experiences and
thoughts that would clearly and fully demonstrate the essential characteristics of the
Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow responsible for the syndrome.
violent behavior of her partner, she also believes that he is capable of killing her, and
that there is no escape.[55] Battered women feel unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, The Court appreciates the ratiocinations given by the expert witnesses for the
and usually fail to leave the relationship.[56] Unless a shelter is available, she stays with defense. Indeed, they were able to explain fully, albeit merely theoretically and
her husband, not only because she typically lacks a means of self-support, but also scientifically, how the personality of the battered woman usually evolved or
because she fears that if she leaves she would be found and hurt even more.[57] deteriorated as a result of repeated and severe beatings inflicted upon her by her
partner or spouse. They corroborated each others testimonies, which were culled from
In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records for specific evidence their numerous studies of hundreds of actual cases. However, they failed to present in
establishing that appellant, due to the repeated abuse she had suffered from her spouse court the factual experiences and thoughts that appellant had related to them -- if at all --
over a long period of time, became afflicted with the battered woman syndrome. We, based on which they concluded that she had BWS.
however, failed to find sufficient evidence that would support such a conclusion. More
specifically, we failed to find ample evidence that would confirm the presence of the We emphasize that in criminal cases, all the elements of a modifying circumstance
essential characteristics of BWS. must be proven in order to be appreciated. To repeat, the records lack supporting
evidence that would establish all the essentials of the battered woman syndrome as
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence supposedly manifested specifically in the case of the Genosas.
characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute
battering incidents. In relating to the court a quo how the fatal incident that led to the BWS as Self-Defense
death of Ben started, Marivic perfectly described the tension-building phase of the cycle. In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself
She was able to explain in adequate detail the typical characteristics of this stage. establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be
However, that single incident does not prove the existence of the syndrome. In other considered in the context of self-defense.[59]
20
From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons further that crucial can satisfy the required imminence of danger.[66] Considering such circumstances and
to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the the existence of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated.
offense[60] -- she must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and
We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-
honestly believed in the need to kill him in order to save her life.
defense.[67] In the absence of such aggression, there can be no self-defense -- complete
Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who resorts to self- or incomplete -- on the part of the victim.[68] Thus, Marivics killing of Ben was not
defense must face a real threat on ones life; and the peril sought to be avoided must completely justified under the circumstances.
be imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.[61] Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides
Mitigating Circumstances Present
the following requisites and effect of self-defense:[62]
In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did not raise any other
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not incur any criminal liability: modifying circumstances that would alter her penalty, we deem it proper to evaluate
and appreciate in her favor circumstances that mitigate her criminal liability. It is a
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following hornbook doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens it wholly for review on any
circumstances concur; issue, including that which has not been raised by the parties.[69]
From several psychological tests she had administered to Marivic, Dra. Dayan, in
First. Unlawful aggression; her Psychological Evaluation Report dated November 29, 2000, opined as follows:
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
This is a classic case of a Battered Woman Syndrome. The repeated battering Marivic
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense.[63] It presupposes experienced with her husband constitutes a form of [cumulative] provocation which
actual, sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger thereof -- on the life or broke down her psychological resistance and natural self-control. It is very clear that
safety of a person.[64] In the present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic she developed heightened sensitivity to sight of impending danger her husband posed
herself, there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and continuously. Marivic truly experienced at the hands of her abuser husband a state of
her fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his violent psychological paralysis which can only be ended by an act of violence on her part. [70]
behavior and escape to their childrens bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased
Dr. Pajarillo corroborates the findings of Dra. Dayan. He explained that the effect of
his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed
repetitious pain taking, repetitious battering, [and] repetitious maltreatment as well as
had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on
the severity and the prolonged administration of the battering is posttraumatic stress
her life or safety.
disorder.[71] Expounding thereon, he said:
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their childrens bedroom
Q What causes the trauma, Mr. Witness?
-- and based on past violent incidents, there was a great probability that he would still
have pursued her and inflicted graver harm -- then, the imminence of the real threat A What causes the trauma is probably the repetitious battering. Second, the
upon her life would not have ceased yet. Where the brutalized person is already severity of the battering. Third, the prolonged administration of battering
suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical assault at the time of the killing or the prolonged commission of the battering and the psychological and
is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a predictable pattern. To constitutional stamina of the victim and another one is the public and
require the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend social support available to the victim. If nobody is interceding, the more
her life would amount to sentencing her to murder by installment.[65] Still, impending she will go to that disorder....
danger (based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the
defendants use of deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication xxxxxxxxx
21
Q You referred a while ago to severity. What are the qualifications in terms of Q As you were saying[,] it x x x obfuscated her rationality?
severity of the postraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Pajarillo?
A Of course obfuscated.[73]
A The severity is the most severe continuously to trig[g]er this post[t]raumatic
In sum, the cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted upon appellant
stress disorder is injury to the head, banging of the head like that. It is
resulted in cumulative provocation which broke down her psychological resistance and
usually the very very severe stimulus that precipitate this post[t]raumatic
natural self-control, psychological paralysis, and difficulty in concentrating or
stress disorder. Others are suffocating the victim like holding a pillow on
impairment of memory.
the face, strangulating the individual, suffocating the individual, and
boxing the individual. In this situation therefore, the victim is heightened Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such manifestations were
to painful stimulus, like for example she is pregnant, she is very analogous to an illness that diminished the exercise by appellant of her will power without,
susceptible because the woman will not only protect herself, she is also to however, depriving her of consciousness of her acts. There was, thus, a resulting
protect the fetus. So the anxiety is heightened to the end [sic] degree. diminution of her freedom of action, intelligence or intent. Pursuant to paragraphs
9[74] and 10[75] of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, this circumstance should be taken
Q But in terms of the gravity of the disorder, Mr. Witness, how do you classify?
in her favor and considered as a mitigating factor. [76]
A We classify the disorder as [acute], or chronic or delayed or [a]typical.
In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating circumstance of
Q Can you please describe this pre[-]classification you called delayed or having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and
[atypical]? obfuscation. It has been held that this state of mind is present when a crime is
committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or
A The acute is the one that usually require only one battering and the
improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.[77] To
individual will manifest now a severe emotional instability, higher
appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1) there is an act,
irritability remorse, restlessness, and fear and probably in most [acute]
both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not
cases the first thing will be happened to the individual will be thinking of
far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during
suicide.
which the accused might recover her normal equanimity.[78]
Q And in chronic cases, Mr. Witness?
Here, an acute battering incident, wherein Ben Genosa was the unlawful aggressor,
A The chronic cases is this repetitious battering, repetitious maltreatment, any preceded his being killed by Marivic. He had further threatened to kill her while
prolonged, it is longer than six (6) months. The [acute] is only the first day dragging her by the neck towards a cabinet in which he had kept a gun. It should also be
to six (6) months. After this six (6) months you become chronic. It is recalled that she was eight months pregnant at the time. The attempt on her life was
stated in the book specifically that after six (6) months is chronic. The likewise on that of her fetus.[79]His abusive and violent acts, an aggression which was
[a]typical one is the repetitious battering but the individual who is directed at the lives of both Marivic and her unborn child, naturally produced passion
abnormal and then become normal. This is how you get neurosis from and obfuscation overcoming her reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a
neurotic personality of these cases of post[t]raumatic stress disorder. [72] separate room, her emotional and mental state continued. According to her, she felt her
blood pressure rise; she was filled with feelings of self-pity and of fear that she and her
Answering the questions propounded by the trial judge, the expert witness clarified baby were about to die. In a fit of indignation, she pried open the cabinet drawer where
further: Ben kept a gun, then she took the weapon and used it to shoot him.
Q But just the same[,] neurosis especially on battered woman syndrome x x x The confluence of these events brings us to the conclusion that there was no
affects x x x his or her mental capacity? considerable period of time within which Marivic could have recovered her normal
A Yes, your Honor. equanimity. Helpful is Dr. Pajarillos testimony[80] that with neurotic anxiety -- a
psychological effect on a victim of overwhelming brutality [or] trauma -- the victim
22
relives the beating or trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually being beaten COURT:
at the time. She cannot control re-experiencing the whole thing, the most vicious and
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed forcibly
the trauma that she suffered. She thinks of nothing but the suffering. Such reliving which
in her front neck)
is beyond the control of a person under similar circumstances, must have been what
Marivic experienced during the brief time interval and prevented her from recovering A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
her normal equanimity. Accordingly, she should further be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation. ATTY. TABUCANON:
It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological paralysis as well Q Where did he bring you?
as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the same set of facts. A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he kept on
On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the shouting at me that you might as well be killed so there will be nobody to
severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon appellant. That is, the nag me
repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her psychological paralysis, which Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will power without
depriving her of consciousness of her acts. A Yes, sir.
The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the violent aggression Q What is there in the drawer?
he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the incident occurred when she was A I was aware that it was a gun.
eight months pregnant with their child was deemed by her as an attempt not only on
her life, but likewise on that of their unborn child. Such perception naturally produced COURT INTERPRETER
passion and obfuscation on her part.
(At this juncture the witness started crying)
Second Legal Issue: Treachery ATTY. TABUCANON:
There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself
arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[81] In order to qualify an A Yes, sir.
act as treacherous, the circumstances invoked must be proven as indubitably as the Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or conjectures, which have
no place in the appreciation of evidence.[82] Because of the gravity of the resulting A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the drawer but
offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.[83] he could not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled his
wallet which contained a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that
Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial court imposed the he was going to kill me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the
penalty of death upon appellant. It inferred this qualifying circumstances merely from blade fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe about
the fact that the lifeless body of Ben had been found lying in bed with an open, that long, and when he was about to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I
depressed, circular fracture located at the back of his head. As to exactly how and when smashed him then I ran to the other room, and on that very moment
he had been fatally attacked, however, the prosecution failed to establish indubitably. everything on my mind was to pity on myself, then the feeling I had on
Only the following testimony of appellant leads us to the events surrounding his death: that very moment was the same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic,
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged you? How did I was about to vomit.
he drag you? COURT INTERPRETER
23
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely). (Upon the answer of the witness getting the pipe and smashed him, the
witness at the same time pointed at the back of her neck or the nape).
xxxxxxxxx
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please describe
Q You said you went to the room, what else happened?
this blade about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
A Considering all the physical sufferings that Ive been through with him, I took
A Three (3) inches long and inch wide.
pity on myself and I felt I was about to die also because of my blood
Q It is a flexible blade? pressure and the baby, so I got that gun and I shot him.
A Its a cutter. COURT
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges? /to Atty. Tabucanon
A Yes, because he once used it to me. Q You shot him?
Q How did he do it? A Yes, I distorted the drawer.[84]
A He wanted to cut my throat. The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of treachery. There is
no showing of the victims position relative to appellants at the time of the shooting.
Q With the same blade? Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me. a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the
deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from
xxxxxxxxx the assailant.[85]
ATTY. TABUCANON: Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault adopted by the
aggressor must have been consciously and deliberately chosen for the specific purpose
Q You said that this blade fell from his grip, is it correct? of accomplishing the unlawful act without risk from any defense that might be put up by
A Yes, because I smashed him. the party attacked.[86] There is no showing, though, that the present appellant
intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her husband without any
Q What happened? risk to herself from any retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, it appears
that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment when
A Ben tried to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I pick-up the pipe and I
she decided to kill her batterer-spouse. In the absence of any convincing proof that she
smashed him and I ran to the other room.
consciously and deliberately employed the method by which she committed the crime
Q What else happened? in order to ensure its execution, this Court resolves the doubt in her favor.[87]
A When I was in the other room, I felt the same thing like what happened Proper Penalty
before when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit. I
The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code
know my blood pressure was raised. I was frightened I was about to die
is reclusion perpetua to death. Since two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
because of my blood pressure.
circumstance have been found to have attended the commission of the offense, the
COURT INTERPRETER: penalty shall be lowered by one (1) degree, pursuant to Article 64 of paragraph 5[88] of
the same Code.[89] The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period is imposable,
24
considering that two mitigating circumstances are to be taken into account in reducing requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all
the penalty by one degree, and no other modifying circumstances were shown to have of these elements were duly established.
attended the commission of the offense.[90] Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is
minimum of the penalty shall be within the range of that which is next lower in degree --
hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no
prision mayor -- and the maximum shall be within the range of the medium period
aggravating circumstance attending her commission of the offense, her penalty
of reclusion temporal.
is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8
Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, we deem it just and proper to months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
impose the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, or six (6) years and one (1)
Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum penalty hereby
day in prison as minimum; to reclusion temporal in its medium period, or 14 years 8
imposed upon her, the director of the Bureau of Corrections may immediately RELEASE her
months and 1 day as maximum. Noting that appellant has already served the minimum
from custody upon due determination that she is eligible for parole, unless she is being
period, she may now apply for and be released from detention on parole.[91]
held for some other lawful cause. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Epilogue
Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman syndrome was Puno, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
neither easy nor simple to analyze and recognize vis--vis the given set of facts in the Davide, Jr., C.J., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., join Justice Santiago in
present case. The Court agonized on how to apply the theory as a modern-day reality. It her dissent.
took great effort beyond the normal manner in which decisions are made -- on the basis Vitug and Quisumbing JJ., in the result.
of existing law and jurisprudence applicable to the proven facts. To give a just and Ynares-Santiago J., see dissenting opinion.
proper resolution of the case, it endeavored to take a good look at studies conducted
here and abroad in order to understand the intricacies of the syndrome and the distinct
personality of the chronically abused person. Certainly, the Court has learned much. And
definitely, the solicitor general and appellants counsel, Atty. Katrina Legarda, have
helped it in such learning process.
While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we can only work
within the limits of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We cannot make or invent them.
Neither can we amend the Revised Penal Code. Only Congress, in its wisdom, may do so.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from
the battered woman syndrome. We now sum up our main points. First, each of the
phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two
battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final
acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the
battered persons mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an
honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of
the killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate and
actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the
former against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the
25