PEOPLE VS.

BOHOLST-CABALLERO

Cunigunda Boholst and Francisco Cabellero were married. During the marriage, there were times when Francisco maltreated and beat
Cunigunda. They later on separated when Francisco left Cunigunda and their child.
On her way home after caroling, Cunigunda met Francisco where he held her by the collar and exchange of harsh words ensued. Francisco held
her by the hair, slapped her face until her nose bled and pushed her to the ground. To keep herself from falling, she held him by the waist where her right
hand grasped the knife tucked inside the left side of his belt line. He continued to push her down; when fell on her back, he knelt over her, held her neck
and choked her. She pulled out the knife and thrust it to him hitting the left backside below his waistline. When she was finally released by her husband,
she ran home and on the way, she threw the knife. In the morning, she surrendered herself to the police.
She was convicted for having killed her husband and was found guilty of Parricide by the trial court. She seeks a reversal of the judgment and
prays for acquittal on the plea of self-defense.

ISSUE: Did Cunigunda stab her husband in the legitimate defense of her person?

HELD:
1. Location of the wound inflicted on the victim.
The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is a strong indication of the truth of Cunigunda’s testimony, for as
she lay on the ground with her husband bent over her it was quite natural for her right hand to get hold of the knife tucked in the left side of the man’s belt
and thrust it at the section of the body nearest to her hand at the moment.
The witness declared that on that night when husband and wife met on the road, Cunigunda called Francisco and when the latter was near, she
immediately stabbed him. If that were true, that is, husband and wife were standing face to face at a distance of 1/2 meter when the stabbing occurred. It
would have been more natural and probable for the weapon to have been directed towards the front part of the body of the victim such as his abdomen or
chest, rather than at his back, left side above the left thigh.

2. Unlawful Aggression
The absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing.
There was no record of any event which occurred immediately prior to that particular night which could have aroused her feelings to such a
degree as to drive her to plan and carry out the killing of her husband.
Holding her by the collar, slapping her until her nose bled, pulling of her hair, pushing her to the ground and strangling her-all of which
constituted the unlawful aggression against which Cunigunda had to defend herself.

3. Reasonable Necessity for the means employed is present.

The reasonable necessity of the means employed in self-defense does not depend upon the harm done but rests upon the imminent danger of
such injury.
A woman who is being strangled and choked by a furious aggressor and rendered almost unconscious by the strong pressure on her throat had
no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon within her reach to save herself from impending death. The knife tucked in her husband’s belt afforded
the appellant the only reasonable means with which she could free and save herself.

4. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Provocation is sufficient when it is proportionate to the aggression, that is, adequate enough to impel one to attack the person claiming self-
defense.
Appellant did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the aggression or attack on her person by her husband. While it was understandable for
Francisco to get angry at his for finding her on the road in the middle of the night, however, he was not justified in inflicting bodily punishment with
intent to kill by choking her. All the appellant did was to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband, which is not sufficient
provocation under the law of self-defense.

ACQUITTAL due to legitimate defense of her person.

 PEOPLE VS GENOSA

The accused and victim were married with three children. The accused was a battered wife.
The victim, after receiving his salary, went to a cockfight with his friend. Before going home, they drank two bottles of beer. When the victim
arrived at his home, his wife was not there. She was out looking for him.
When she arrived at their home, she saw that he was drunk. He nagged her for following him and dared her to quarrel him. She ignored him and
attended their children who were doing their assignments. He then went to kitchen, got a bolo and cut the antenna wire of the TV. When he was about to
attack her, she ran to the room. When she attempted to run, he held her hands and whirled her and fell to the bedside. She screamed for help and then he
left.
When he returned home, he dragged her outside the bedroom towards the drawer. He tried to open the drawer but did not have the key. He
pulled his wallet which contained a 3 ½ inch cutter. Fearing that he was going to kill her, she smashed his arm with a pipe causing him to drop the wallet
and blade. When he was about to pick up the wallet and the blade, she smashed him on the nape and ran to the other room.
While he was sleeping, she shot him with a gun from the drawer.
The trial court found her guilty of PARRICIDE. Accused anchors her prayer for acquittal on a novel theory “Battered Wife Syndrome” which
allegedly constitutes self-defense.

ISSUE: Whether or not BWS constitutes self-defense?

HELD:
The Battered Wife Syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence which has three phases:
1. Tension Building phase – minor battering occurs, woman tries to pacify batterer through a show of nurturing behavior
2. Acute Battering Incident – brutality, destructiveness and sometimes death. During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an
end to the violence.
3. Tranquil, loving for, (or at least non violent) phase – when the acute battering incident ends and the couple experience profound relief.

However, the defense failed to elicit from the accused the essential characteristics of the syndrome. No doubt there were acute battering incidents. In
relating to the court a quo how the fatal incident that led to the death of the victim started, the accused perfectly described the tension building phase of
the cycle. However, that single incident does not prove the existence of the syndrome. In other words, she failed to prove that at least another battering
episode in the past she had gone through a similar pattern.

Unlawful Aggression
BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the offense-she must actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly
believed in the need to kill him in order to save her life. There was sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of the victim and the
accused’s fatal attack upon him. He apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her life
or safety. Thus, there was no unlawful aggression.

Mitigating Circumstances
1. Psychological Paralysis
The cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted upon her resulted in “cumulative provocation, which broke down her psychological
resistance and natural self-control, psychological paralysis and difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory.
Such manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the exercise by accused of her will power without, however, depriving her of
consciousness of her acts. There was, thus, a resulting diminution of her freedom of action, intelligence or intent.

2. Passion and Obfuscation

Requisites:
1. There is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
2. This act is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time.
His abusive and violent acts, an aggression which was directed at the lives of both the accused and their unborn child, naturally
produced passion and obfuscation overcoming her reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a separate room, her emotional and mental
state continued.

Treachery
There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without
risk to oneself arising from the defense that the offended party might take.
There was no treachery. Equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated
as a qualifying circumstance because the victim may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.
There is no showing that the accused intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from
any retaliatory act that he might make. It appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment when she decided to kill
her husband.

Wherefore, guilty of PARRICIDE with two mitigating circumstance and no aggravating.

←
← Ty vs People
←
← Facts: 30 May 1993- Vicky Ty issued checks payable to Manila Doctor’s Hospital in the amount of P30,000, even if she knows that there is no
sufficient funds to cover the payment. Metrobank. Dishonors the checks issued by Ty and sent notices to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital that the “ Account
is Closed.” Victy Ty also issued several postdated checks in November and December 1992, January- May 1993.
← The cases were consolidated and tried. At her arraignment Ty pleaded not guilty. As her defense, she said she issued the checks because of
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. She averred that she was forced to issue the checks because of the fear the hospital will not release her ailing
mother who claims was harshely and inhumanely treated by the said hospital. Mother said that she was deprived of AC, refrigerator and TV and subject to
inconveniences such as the cutting off of the telephone line, late delivery of food and refusal to change her gowns and bedsheets.
← Trial Court rendered a decision finding TY GUILTY of 7 counts of BP 22 violation ( Bouncing Check Law). Trial court sentenced her to 42
months of imprisonment.
← Ty Appealled to the CA, but CA reiterated the ruling of the lower court. CA however, changed the punishment from imprisonment to penalty.
( applying the case of Vaca v. CA.- Determining the penalty imposed by BP 22, philosophy underlying the INDETERINATE SENTENCE LAW –
redeeming valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness, with due regard to social order).
← Ty eleveated her case to the SC, with the same facts and defense.
← DECISION:
← SC denied petition and uphold the decision of the CA. Mere act of issuing a boucing check is a mala prohibutm. Ty’s claim that she issued the
checks due to uncontrollable fear of a greater injury is mere speculation, Mother’s illness is not actually life-threatening.
←