public of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 135981 January 15, 2004
PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NES, appellee,
vs.
M"R!#!C GENOS", appellant.
D E C I S I O N
P"NG"N!$"N, J.%
Admittin she !illed he" husband, appellant ancho"s he" p"a#e" fo" ac$uittal on a novel theo"# %% the
&batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome& (B)S*, 'hich alleedl# constitutes self%defense. +nde" the p"oven
facts, ho'eve", she is not entitled to complete e,one"ation because the"e 'as no unla'ful
a"ession %% no immediate and une,pected attac! on he" b# he" batte"e"%husband at the time she
shot him.
Absent unla'ful a"ession, the"e can be no self%defense, complete o" incomplete.
But all is not lost. -he seve"e beatins "epeatedl# inflicted on appellant constituted a fo"m of
cumulative p"ovocation that b"o!e do'n he" ps#choloical "esistance and self%cont"ol. -his
&ps#choloical pa"al#sis& she suffe"ed diminished he" 'ill po'e", the"eb# entitlin he" to the
mitiatin facto" unde" pa"a"aphs . and /0 of A"ticle /1 of the 2evised Penal Code.
In addition, appellant should also be c"edited 'ith the e,tenuatin ci"cumstance of havin acted
upon an impulse so po'e"ful as to have natu"all# p"oduced passion and obfuscation. -he acute
batte"in she suffe"ed that fatal niht in the hands of he" batte"e"%spouse, in spite of the fact that she
'as eiht months p"enant 'ith thei" child, ove"'helmed he" and put he" in the afo"esaid emotional
and mental state, 'hich ove"came he" "eason and impelled he" to vindicate he" life and he" unbo"n
child3s.
Conside"in the p"esence of these t'o mitiatin ci"cumstances a"isin f"om B)S, as 'ell as the
benefits of the Indete"minate Sentence 4a', she ma# no' appl# fo" and be "eleased f"om custod#
on pa"ole, because she has al"ead# se"ved the minimum pe"iod of he" penalt# 'hile unde" detention
du"in the pendenc# of this case.
T&' Ca('
5o" automatic "evie' befo"e this Cou"t is the Septembe" 67, /..8 Decision
/
of the 2eional -"ial
Cou"t (2-C* of O"moc Cit# (B"anch 17* in C"iminal Case No. 70/9%0, findin Ma"ivic :enosa uilt#
be#ond "easonable doubt of pa""icide. -he dec"etal po"tion of the Decision "eads;
&)<E2E5O2E, afte" all the fo"eoin bein dul# conside"ed, the Cou"t finds the accused,
Ma"ivic :enosa # Isid"o, :+I4-= be#ond "easonable doubt of the c"ime of Pa""icide as
p"ovided unde" A"ticle 6>9 of the 2evised Penal Code as "esto"ed b# Sec. 7, 2A No. ?97.,
and afte" findin t"eache"# as a ene"ic a"avatin ci"cumstance and none of mitiatin
ci"cumstance, he"eb# sentences the accused 'ith the penalt# of DEA-<.
&-he Cou"t li!e'ise penali@es the accused to pa# the hei"s of the deceased the sum of fift#
thousand pesos (P70,000.00*, Philippine cu""enc# as indemnit# and anothe" sum of fift#
thousand pesos (P70,000.00*, Philippine cu""enc# as mo"al damaes.&
6
-he Info"mation
1
cha"ed appellant 'ith pa""icide as follo's;
&-hat on o" about the /7
th
da# of Novembe" /..7, at Ba"ana# Bil'an, Municipalit# of
Isabel, P"ovince of 4e#te, Philippines and 'ithin the Au"isdiction of this <ono"able Cou"t, the
above%named accused, 'ith intent to !ill, 'ith t"eache"# and evident p"emeditation, did then
and the"e 'ilfull#, unla'full# and feloniousl# attac!, assault, hit and 'ound one BEN
:ENOSA, he" leitimate husband, 'ith the use of a ha"d deadl# 'eapon, 'hich the accused
had p"ovided he"self fo" the pu"pose, BcausinC the follo'in 'ounds, to 'it;
3Cadave"ic spasm.
3Bod# on the 6
nd
stae of decomposition.
35ace, blac!, blo'nup D s'ollen 'E evident post%mo"tem lividit#. E#es p"ot"udin f"om
its soc!ets and tonue slihtl# p"ot"udes out of the mouth.
35"actu"e, open, dep"essed, ci"cula" located at the occipital bone of the head,
"esultin BinC lace"ation of the b"ain, spontaneous "uptu"e of the blood vessels on the
poste"io" su"face of the b"ain, lace"ation of the du"a and menineal vessels
p"oducin seve"e int"ac"anial hemo""hae.
3Bliste"s at both e,t"emBiCties, ante"io" chest, poste"io" chest, t"un! 'E sheddin of the
epide"mis.
3Abdomen distended 'E as. -"un! bloated.3
'hich caused his death.&
>
)ith the assistance of he" counsel,
7
appellant pleaded not uilt# du"in he" a""ainment on Ma"ch 1,
/..?.
9
In due cou"se, she 'as t"ied fo" and convicted of pa""icide.
T&' Fa)*(
Version of the Prosecution
-he Office of the Solicito" :ene"al (OS:* summa"i@es the p"osecution3s ve"sion of the facts in this
'ise;
&Appellant and Ben :enosa 'e"e united in ma""iae on Novembe" /., /.81 in O"moc Cit#.
-he"eafte", the# lived 'ith the pa"ents of Ben in thei" house at Isabel, 4e#te. 5o" a time,
Ben3s #oune" b"othe", Ale,, and his 'ife lived 'ith them too. Sometime in /..7, ho'eve",
appellant and Ben "ented f"om Steban Matia a house at Ba"ana# Bil'an, Isabel, 4e#te
'he"e the# lived 'ith thei" t'o child"en, namel#; Fohn Ma"ben and Ea"l Pie""e.
&On Novembe" /7, /..7, Ben and A"tu"o Basobas 'ent to a coc!fiht afte" "eceivin thei"
sala"#. -he# each had t'o (6* bottles of bee" befo"e headin home. A"tu"o 'ould pass Ben3s
house befo"e "eachin his. )hen the# a""ived at the house of Ben, he found out that
appellant had one to Isabel, 4e#te to loo! fo" him. Ben 'ent inside his house, 'hile A"tu"o
'ent to a sto"e ac"oss it, 'aitin until .;00 in the evenin fo" the masiao"unne" to place a
bet. A"tu"o did not see appellant a""ive but on his 'a# home passin the side of the :enosas3
"ented house, he hea"d he" sa# 3I 'on3t hesitate to !ill #ou3 to 'hich Ben "eplied 3)h# !ill me
'hen I am innocentG3 -hat 'as the last time A"tu"o sa' Ben alive. A"tu"o also noticed that
since then, the :enosas3 "ented house appea"ed uninhabited and 'as al'a#s closed.
&On Novembe" /9, /..7, appellant as!ed E"linda Pade"o, he" close f"iend and neihbo"
livin about fift# (70* mete"s f"om he" house, to loo! afte" he" pi because she 'as oin to
Cebu fo" a p"enanc# chec!%up. Appellant li!e'ise as!ed E"linda to sell he" moto"c#cle to
thei" neihbo" 2onnie Da#anda#an 'ho unfo"tunatel# had no mone# to bu# it.
&-hat same da#, about /6;/7 in the afte"noon, Foseph Halida 'as 'aitin fo" a bus oin to
O"moc 'hen he sa' appellant oin out of thei" house 'ith he" t'o !ids in to', each one
ca""#in a ba, loc!in the ate and ta!in he" child"en to the 'aitin a"ea 'he"e he 'as.
Foseph lived about fift# (70* mete"s behind the :enosas3 "ented house. Foseph, appellant
and he" child"en "ode the same bus to O"moc. -he# had no conve"sation as Foseph noticed
that appellant did not 'ant to tal! to him.
&On Novembe" /8, /..7, the neihbo"s of Steban Matia told him about the foul odo"
emanatin f"om his house bein "ented b# Ben and appellant. Steban 'ent the"e to find out
the cause of the stench but the house 'as loc!ed f"om the inside. Since he did not have a
duplicate !e# 'ith him, Steban dest"o#ed the ate padloc! 'ith a bo""o'ed steel sa'. <e
'as able to et inside th"ouh the !itchen doo" but onl# afte" dest"o#in a 'indo' to "each a
hoo! that loc!ed it. Alone, Steban 'ent inside the unloc!ed bed"oom 'he"e the offensive
smell 'as comin f"om. -he"e, he sa' the lifeless bod# of Ben l#in on his side on the bed
cove"ed 'ith a blan!et. <e 'as onl# in his b"iefs 'ith inAu"ies at the bac! of his head. Seein
this, Steban 'ent out of the house and sent 'o"d to the mothe" of Ben about his son3s
misfo"tune. 4ate" that da#, Iluminada :enosa, the mothe" of Ben, identified the dead bod# as
that of Bhe"C son.
&Mean'hile, in the mo"nin of the same da#, SPO1 4eo Acodesin, then assined at the
police station at Isabel, 4e#te, "eceived a "epo"t "ea"din the foul smell at the :enosas3
"ented house. -oethe" 'ith SPO/ Milla"es, SPO/ Colon, and D". 2efelina Ce"illo, SPO1
Acodesin p"oceeded to the house and 'ent inside the bed"oom 'he"e the# found the dead
bod# of Ben l#in on his side '"apped 'ith a bedsheet. -he"e 'as blood at the nape of Ben
'ho onl# had his b"iefs on. SPO1 Acodesin found in one co"ne" at the side of anaparador a
metal pipe about t'o (6* mete"s f"om 'he"e Ben 'as, leanin aainst a 'all. -he metal pipe
measu"ed th"ee (1* feet and si, (9* inches lon 'ith a diamete" of one and half (/ /E6*
inches. It had an open end 'ithout a stop valve 'ith a "ed stain at one end. -he bed"oom
'as not in disa""a#.
&About /0;00 that same mo"nin, the cadave" of Ben, because of its stench, had to be ta!en
outside at the bac! of the house befo"e the postmo"tem e,amination 'as conducted b# D".
Ce"illo in the p"esence of the police. A municipal health office" at Isabel, 4e#te "esponsible fo"
medico%leal cases, D". Ce"illo found that Ben had been dead fo" t'o to th"ee da#s and his
bod# 'as al"ead# decomposin. -he postmo"tem e,amination of D". Ce"illo #ielded the
findins $uoted in the Info"mation fo" pa""icide late" filed aainst appellant. She concluded
that the cause of Ben3s death 'as 3ca"diopulmona"# a""est seconda"# to seve"e int"ac"anial
hemo""hae due to a dep"essed f"actu"e of the occipital BboneC.3
&"++',,an* a-./**'- 0/,,/n1 $'n. She testified that oin home afte" 'o"! on Novembe" /7,
/..7, she ot 'o""ied that he" husband 'ho 'as not home #et miht have one amblin
since it 'as a pa#da#. )ith he" cousin Ecel A"aIo, appellant 'ent to loo! fo" Ben at the
ma"!etplace and tave"ns at Isabel, 4e#te but did not find him the"e. -he# found Ben d"un!
upon thei" "etu"n at the :enosas3 house. Ecel 'ent home despite appellant3s "e$uest fo" he"
to sleep in thei" house.
&-hen, Ben pu"po"tedl# naed appellant fo" follo'in him, even challenin he" to a fiht.
She alleedl# ino"ed him and instead attended to thei" child"en 'ho 'e"e doin thei"
home'o"!. Appa"entl# disappointed 'ith he" "eaction, Ben s'itched off the liht and, 'ith the
use of a choppin !nife, cut the television antenna o" 'i"e to !eep he" f"om 'atchin
television. Acco"din to appellant, Ben 'as about to attac! he" so she "an to the bed"oom,
but he ot hold of he" hands and 'hi"led he" a"ound. She fell on the side of the bed and
sc"eamed fo" help. Ben left. At this point, appellant pac!ed his clothes because she 'anted
him to leave. Seein his pac!ed clothes upon his "etu"n home, Ben alleedl# fle' into a
"ae, d"aed appellant outside of the bed"oom to'a"ds a d"a'e" holdin he" b# the nec!,
and told he" 3=ou miht as 'ell be !illed so nobod# 'ould na me.3 Appellant testified that
she 'as a'a"e that the"e 'as a un inside the d"a'e" but since Ben did not have the !e# to
it, he ot a th"ee%inch lon blade cutte" f"om his 'allet. She ho'eve", 3smashed3 the a"m of
Ben 'ith a pipe, causin him to d"op the blade and his 'allet. Appellant then 3smashed3 Ben
at his nape 'ith the pipe as he 'as about to pic! up the blade and his 'allet. She the"eafte"
"an inside the bed"oom.
&Appellant, ho'eve", insisted that she ended the life of he" husband b# shootin him. She
supposedl# 3disto"ted3 the d"a'e" 'he"e the un 'as and shot Ben. <e did not die on the
spot, thouh, but in the bed"oom.&
?
(Citations omitted*
Version of the Defense
Appellant "elates he" ve"sion of the facts in this manne";
&/. Ma"ivic and Ben :enosa 'e"e alleedl# ma""ied on Novembe" /., /.81. P"io" to he"
ma""iae, Ma"ivic had "aduated f"om San Ca"los, Cebu Cit#, obtainin a de"ee of Bachelo"
of Science in Business Administ"ation, and 'as 'o"!in, at the time of he" husband3s death,
as a Sec"eta"# to the Po"t Manae"s in O"moc Cit#. -he couple had th"ee (1* child"en; Fohn
Ma"ben, Ea"l Pie""e and Ma"ie Bianca.
&6. Ma"ivic and Ben had !no'n each othe" since elementa"# schoolJ the# 'e"e neihbo"s in
Bil'anJ the# 'e"e classmatesJ and the# 'e"e thi"d de"ee cousins. Both sets of pa"ents
'e"e aainst thei" "elationship, but Ben 'as pe"sistent and t"ied to stop othe" suito"s f"om
cou"tin he". -hei" closeness developed as he 'as he" constant pa"tne" at fiestas.
&1. Afte" thei" ma""iae, the# lived fi"st in the home of Ben3s pa"ents, toethe" 'ith Ben3s
b"othe", Ale,, in Isabel, 4e#te. In the fi"st #ea" of ma""iae, Ma"ivic and Ben 3lived happil#3.
But appa"entl#, soon the"eafte", the couple 'ould $ua""el often and thei" fihts 'ould become
violent.
&>. Ben3s b"othe", Ale,, testified fo" the p"osecution that he could not "emembe" 'hen Ben
and Ma"ivic ma""ied. <e said that 'hen Ben and Ma"ivic $ua""eled, ene"all# 'hen Ben
'ould come home d"un!, Ma"ivic 'ould inflict inAu"ies on him. <e said that in one incident in
/..1 he sa' Ma"ivic holdin a !itchen !nife afte" Ben had shouted fo" help as his left hand
'as cove"ed 'ith blood. Ma"ivic left the house but afte" a 'ee!, she "etu"ned appa"entl#
havin as!ed fo" Ben3s fo"iveness. In anothe" incident in Ma# 66, /..>, ea"l# mo"nin, Ale,
and his fathe" appa"entl# "ushed to Ben3s aid aain and sa' blood f"om Ben3s fo"ehead and
Ma"ivic holdin an empt# bottle. Ben and Ma"ivic "econciled afte" Ma"ivic had appa"entl#
aain as!ed fo" Ben3s fo"iveness.
&M"s. Iluminada :enosa, Ma"ivic3s mothe"%in%la', testified too, sa#in that Ben and Ma"ivic
ma""ied in 3/.89 o" /.87 mo"e o" less he"e in 5atima, O"moc Cit#.3 She said as the ma""iae
'ent alon, Ma"ivic became 3al"ead# ve"# demandin. M"s. Iluminada :enosa said that afte"
the bi"th of Ma"ivic3s t'o sons, the"e 'e"e 3th"ee (1* misunde"standins.3 -he fi"st 'as 'hen
Ma"ivic stabbed Ben 'ith a table !nife th"ouh his left a"mJ the second incident 'as on
Novembe" /7, /..>, 'hen Ma"ivic st"uc! Ben on the fo"ehead 3usin a sha"p inst"ument until
the e#e 'as also affected. It 'as 'ounded and also the ea"3 and he" husband 'ent to Ben to
helpJ and the thi"d incident 'as in /..7 'hen the couple had al"ead# t"ansfe""ed to the
house in Bil'an and she sa' that Ben3s hand 'as plaste"ed as 3the bone c"ac!ed.3
&Both mothe" and son claimed the# b"ouht Ben to a Pasa" clinic fo" medical inte"vention.
&7. A"tu"o Basobas, a co%'o"!e" of Ben, testified that on Novembe" /7, /..7 3Afte" 'e
collected ou" sala"#, 'e 'ent to the coc!%fihtin place of ISCO.3 -he# sta#ed the"e fo" th"ee
(1* hou"s, afte" 'hich the# 'ent to 3+nilo!s3 and d"an! bee" K alleedl# onl# t'o (6* bottles
each. Afte" d"in!in the# bouht ba"be$ue and 'ent to the :enosa "esidence. Ma"ivic 'as
not the"e. <e sta#ed a 'hile tal!in 'ith Ben, afte" 'hich he 'ent ac"oss the "oad to 'ait 3fo"
the "unne" and the ushe" of the masiao ame because du"in that time, the hea"in on
masiao numbe"s 'as "ampant. I 'as 'aitin fo" the ushe"s and "unne"s so that I can place
m# bet.3 On his 'a# home at about .;00 in the evenin, he hea"d the :enosas a"uin. -he#
'e"e $ua""elin loudl#. Outside thei" house 'as one 35"edo3 'ho is used b# Ben to feed his
fihtin coc!s. Basobas3 testimon# on the "oot of the $ua""el, convenientl# ove"hea"d b# him
'as Ma"ivic sa#in 3I 'ill neve" hesitate to !ill #ou3, 'hilst Ben "eplied 3)h# !ill me 'hen I am
innocent.3 Basobas thouht the# 'e"e Ao!in.
&<e did not hea" them $ua""elin 'hile he 'as ac"oss the "oad f"om the :enosa "esidence.
Basobas admitted that he and Ben 'e"e al'a#s at the coc!pits eve"# Satu"da# and Sunda#.
<e claims that he once told Ben 3befo"e 'hen he 'as st"ic!en 'ith a bottle b# Ma"ivic
:enosa3 that he should leave he" and that Ben 'ould al'a#s ta!e he" bac! afte" she 'ould
leave him 3so man# times3.
&Basobas could not "emembe" 'hen Ma"ivic had hit Ben, but it 'as a lon time that the# had
been $ua""elin. <e said Ben 3even had a 'ound3 on the "iht fo"ehead. <e had !no'n the
couple fo" onl# one (/* #ea".
&9. Ma"ivic testified that afte" the fi"st #ea" of ma""iae, Ben became c"uel to he" and 'as a
habitual d"in!e". She said he p"ovo!ed he", he 'ould slap he", sometimes he 'ould pin he"
do'n on the bed, and sometimes beat he".
&-hese incidents happened seve"al times and she 'ould often "un home to he" pa"ents, but
Ben 'ould follo' he" and see! he" out, p"omisin to chane and 'ould as! fo" he"
fo"iveness. She said afte" she 'ould be beaten, she 'ould see! medical help f"om D". Dino
Cain, D". 4uce"o and D"a. Ce"illo. -hese docto"s 'ould ente" the inAu"ies inflicted upon he"
b# Ben into thei" "epo"ts. Ma"ivic said Ben 'ould beat he" o" $ua""el 'ith he" eve"# time he
'as d"un!, at least th"ee times a 'ee!.
&?. In he" defense, 'itnesses 'ho 'e"e not so closel# "elated to Ma"ivic, testified as to the
abuse and violence she "eceived at the hands of Ben.
3?./. M". Foe Ba""ientos, a fishe"man, 'ho 'as a Bneihbo"C of the :enosas, testified that on
Novembe" /7, /..7, he ove"hea"d a $ua""el bet'een Ben and Ma"ivic. Ma"ivic 'as shoutin
fo" help and th"ouh the open Aalousies, he sa' the spouses 3"applin 'ith each othe"3. Ben
had Ma"ivic in a cho!e hold. <e did not do an#thin, but had come volunta"il# to testif#.
(Please note this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo Busabos.
8
*
3?.6. M". Funnie Ba""ientos, also a fishe"man, and the b"othe" of M". Foe Ba""ientos, testified
that he hea"d his neihbo" Ma"ivic shoutin on the niht of Novembe" /7, /..7. <e peeped
th"ouh the 'indo' of his hut 'hich is located beside the :enosa house and sa' 3the
spouses "applin 'ith each othe" then Ben :enosa 'as holdin 'ith his both hands the
nec! of the accused, Ma"ivic :enosa3. <e said afte" a 'hile, Ma"ivic 'as able to e,t"icate
heB"Cself and ente" the "oom of the child"en. Afte" that, he 'ent bac! to 'o"! as he 'as to o
fishin that evenin. <e "etu"ned at 8;00 the ne,t mo"nin. (Again, please note that this was
the same night as that testified to by Arturo Basobas*.
3?.1. M". -eodo"o Sa"abia 'as a fo"me" neihbo" of the :enosas 'hile the# 'e"e livin in
Isabel, 4e#te. <is house 'as located about fift# (70* mete"s f"om thei"s. Ma"ivic is his niece
and he !ne' them to be livin toethe" fo" /1 o" /> #ea"s. <e said the couple 'as al'a#s
$ua""elin. Ma"ivic confided in him that Ben 'ould pa'n items and then 'ould use the
mone# to amble. One time, he 'ent to thei" house and the# 'e"e $ua""elin. Ben 'as so
an"#, but 'ould be pacified 3if somebod# 'ould come.3 <e testified that 'hile Ben 'as alive
3he used to amble and 'hen he became d"un!, he 'ould o to ou" house and he 'ill sa#,
3-eod#3 because that 'as 'hat he used to call me, 3mo!imas ta,3 'hich means 3let3s o and
loo! fo" a 'ho"e.3 M". Sa"abia fu"the" testified that Ben 3'ould bo, his 'ife and I 'ould see
b"uises and one time she "an to me, I noticed a 'ound (the 'itness pointed to his "iht
b"east* as acco"din to he" a !nife 'as st"ic!en to he".3 M". Sa"abia also said that once he
sa' Ben had been inAu"ed too. <e said he volunta"il# testified onl# that mo"nin.
3?.>. Miss Ecel A"ano, an /8%#ea" old student, 'ho is a cousin of Ma"ivic, testified that in the
afte"noon of Novembe" /7, /..7, Ma"ivic 'ent to he" house and as!ed he" help to loo! fo"
Ben. -he# sea"ched in the ma"!et place, seve"al tave"ns and some othe" places, but could
not find him. She accompanied Ma"ivic home. Ma"ivic 'anted he" to sleep 'ith he" in the
:enosa house 3because she miht be batte"ed b# he" husband.3 )hen the# ot to the
:enosa house at about ?;00 in the evenin, Miss A"ano said that 3he" husband 'as al"ead#
the"e and 'as d"un!.3 Miss A"ano !ne' he 'as d"un! 3because of his stae"in 'al!in and
I can also detect his face.3 Ma"ivic ente"ed the house and she hea"d them $ua""el noisil#.
(Aain, please note that this is the same niht as that testified to b# A"tu"o Basobas* Miss
A"ano testified that this 'as not the fi"st time Ma"ivic had as!ed he" to sleep in the house as
Ma"ivic 'ould be af"aid eve"# time he" husband 'ould come home d"un!. At one time 'hen
she did sleep ove", she 'as a'a!ened at /0;00 in the evenin 'hen Ben a""ived because
the couple 3'e"e ve"# nois# in the sala and I had hea"d somethin 'as b"o!en li!e a vase.3
She said Ma"ivic "an into he" "oom and the# loc!ed the doo". )hen Ben couldn3t et in he ot
a chai" and a !nife and 3sho'ed us the !nife th"ouh the 'indo' "ill and he sca"ed us.3 She
said that Ma"ivic shouted fo" help, but no one came. On c"oss%e,amination, she said that
'hen she left Ma"ivic3s house on Novembe" /7, /..7, the couple 'e"e still $ua""elin.
3?.7. D". Dino Cain, a ph#sician testified that he and Ma"ivic 'e"e co%emplo#ees at
P<I4P<OS, Isabel, 4e#te. Ma"ivic 'as his patient 3man# times3 and had also "eceived
t"eatment f"om othe" docto"s. D". Cain testified that f"om Ful# 9, /.8. until Novembe" .,
/..7, the"e 'e"e si, (9* episodes of ph#sical inAu"ies inflicted upon Ma"ivic. -hese inAu"ies
'e"e "epo"ted in his Out%Patient Cha"t at the P<I4P<OS <ospital. -he p"osecution admitted
the $ualifications of D". Cain and conside"ed him an e,pe"t 'itness.3
, , , , , , , , ,
3D". Cain3s clinical histo"# of the tension headache and h#pe"tention of Ma"ivic on t'ent#%
th"ee (61* sepa"ate occasions 'as ma"!ed at E,hibits 363 and 36%B.3 -he OPD Cha"t of
Ma"ivic at the Philphos Clinic 'hich "eflected all the consultations made b# Ma"ivic and
the si, (9* incidents of ph#sical inAu"ies "epo"ted'as ma"!ed as E,hibit 31.3
&On c"oss%e,amination, D". Cain said that he is not a ps#chiat"ist, he could not sa# 'hethe"
the inAu"ies 'e"e di"ectl# "elated to the c"ime committed. <e said it is onl# a ps#chiat"ist 'ho
is $ualified to e,amine the ps#choloical ma!e%up of the patient, 3'hethe" she is capable of
committin a c"ime o" not.3
3?.9 M". Panfilo -e"o, the ba"ana# captain in the place 'he"e the :enosas "esided, testified
that about t'o (6* months befo"e Ben died, Ma"ivic 'ent to his office past 8;00 in the
evenin. She souht his help to settle o" conf"ont the :enosa couple 'ho 'e"e e,pe"iencin
3famil# t"oubles3. <e told Ma"ivic to "etu"n in the mo"nin, but he did not hea" f"om he" aain
and assumed 3that the# miht have settled 'ith each othe" o" the# miht have fo"iven 'ith
each othe".3
, , , , , , , , ,
&Ma"ivic said she did not p"ovo!e he" husband 'hen she ot home that niht it 'as he"
husband 'ho bean the p"ovocation. Ma"ivic said she 'as f"ihtened that he" husband
'ould hu"t he" and she 'anted to ma!e su"e she 'ould delive" he" bab# safel#. In fact,
Ma"ivic had to be admitted late" at the 2i@al Medical Cent"e as she 'as suffe"in f"om
eclampsia and h#pe"tension, and the bab# 'as bo"n p"ematu"el# on Decembe" /, /..7.
&Ma"ivic testified that du"in he" ma""iae she had t"ied to leave he" husband at least five (7*
times, but that Ben 'ould al'a#s follo' he" and the# 'ould "econcile. Ma"ivic said that the
"eason 'h# Ben 'as violent and abusive to'a"ds he" that niht 'as because 3he 'as c"a@#
about his "ecent i"lf"iend, 4ulu , , , 2ubillos.3
&On c"oss%e,amination, Ma"ivic insisted she shot Ben 'ith a unJ she said that he died in the
bed"oomJ that thei" $ua""els could be hea"d b# an#one passin thei" houseJ that Basobas
lied in his testimon#J that she left fo" Manila the ne,t da#, Novembe" /9, /..7J that she did
not bothe" an#one in Manila, "ented he"self a "oom, and ot he"self a Aob as a field
"esea"che" unde" the alias 3Ma"velous Isid"o3J she did not tell an#one that she 'as leavin
4e#te, she Aust 'anted to have a safe delive"# of he" bab#J and that she 'as a""ested in San
Pablo, 4auna.
3Ans'e"in $uestions f"om the Cou"t, Ma"ivic said that she th"e' the un a'a#J that she did
not !no' 'hat happened to the pipe she used to 3smash him once3J that she 'as 'ounded
b# Ben on he" '"ist 'ith the boloJ and that t'o (6* hou"s afte" she 'as 3'hi"led3 b# Ben, he
!ic!ed he" 3ass3 and d"aed he" to'a"ds the d"a'e" 'hen he sa' that she had pac!ed his
thins.3
&.. -he bod# of Ben :enosa 'as found on Novembe" /8, /..7 afte" an investiation 'as
made of the foul odo" emittin f"om the :enosa "esidence. -his fact 'as testified to b# all the
p"osecution 'itnesses and some defense 'itnesses du"in the t"ial.
&/0. D"a. 2efelina =. Ce"illo, a ph#sician, 'as the Municipal <ealth Office" of Isabel, 4e#te at
the time of the incident, and amon he" "esponsibilities as such 'as to ta!e cha"e of all
medico%leal cases, such as the e,amination of cadave"s and the autops# of cadave"s. D"a.
Ce"illo is not a fo"ensic patholoist. She me"el# too! the medical boa"d e,ams and passed in
/.89. She 'as called b# the police to o to the :enosa "esidence and 'hen she ot the"e,
she sa' 3some police office" and neihbo" a"ound.3 She sa' Ben :enosa, cove"ed b# a
blan!et, l#in in a semi%p"one position 'ith his bac! to the doo". <e 'as 'ea"in onl# a b"ief.
, , , , , , , , ,
&D"a. Ce"illo said that 3the"e is onl# one inAu"# and that is the inAu"# involvin the s!eletal a"ea
of the head3 'hich she desc"ibed as a 3f"actu"e3. And that based on he" e,amination, Ben had
been dead 6 o" 1 da#s. D"a. Ce"illo did not testif# as to 'hat caused his death.
&D"a. Ce"illo 'as not c"oss%e,amined b# defense counsel.
&//. -he Info"mation, dated Novembe" />, /..9, filed aainst Ma"ivic :enosa cha"ed he"
'ith the c"ime of PA22ICIDE committed 3'ith intent to !ill, 'ith t"eache"# and evidence
p"emeditation, , , , 'ilfull#, unla'full# and feloniousl# attac!, assault, hit and 'ound , , ,
he" leitimate husband, 'ith the use of a ha"d deadl# 'eapon , , , 'hich caused his death.3
&/6. -"ial too! place on ? and /> Ap"il /..?, /> Ma# /..?, 6/ Ful# /..?, /?, 66 and 61
Septembe" /..?, /6 Novembe" /..?, /7 and /9 Decembe" /..?, 66 Ma# /..8, and 7 and 9
Auust /..8.
&/1. On 61 Septembe" /..8, o" onl# fift# (70* da#s f"om the da# of the last t"ial date, the
<on. 5o"tunito 4. Mad"ona, P"esidin Fude, 2-C%B"anch 17, O"moc Cit#, "ende"ed a
F+D:MEN- findin Ma"ivic uilt# 3be#ond "easonable doubt3 of the c"ime of pa""icide, and
fu"the" found t"eache"# as an a"avatin ci"cumstance, thus sentencin he" to the ultimate
penalt# of DEA-<.
&/>. -he case 'as elevated to this <ono"able Cou"t upon automatic "evie' and, unde" date
of 6> Fanua"# 6000, Ma"ivic3s t"ial la'#e", Att#. :il Ma"vel P. -abucanon, filed a Motion to
)ithd"a' as counsel, attachin the"eto, as a p"ecautiona"# measu"e, t'o (6* d"afts of
Appellant3s B"iefs he had p"epa"ed fo" Ma"ivic 'hich, fo" "easons of he" o'n, 'e"e not
confo"med to b# he".
&-he <ono"able Cou"t allo'ed the 'ithd"a'al of Att#. -abucanon and pe"mitted the ent"# of
appea"ance of unde"sined counsel.
&/7. )ithout the !no'lede of counsel, Ma"ivic :enosa '"ote a lette" dated 60 Fanua"#
6000, to the Chief Fustice, cou"sin the same th"ouh Att#. -e"esita :. Dimaisip, Deput#
Cle"! of Cou"t of Chief Fudicial 2eco"ds Office, 'he"ein she submitted he" 3B"ief 'ithout
counsels3 to the Cou"t.
&-his lette" 'as stamp%"eceived b# the <ono"able Cou"t on > 5eb"ua"# 6000.
&/9. In the meantime, unde" date of /? 5eb"ua"# 6000, and stamp%"eceived b# the <ono"able
Cou"t on /. 5eb"ua"# 6000, unde"sined counsel filed an +2:EN- OMNIB+S MO-ION
p"a#in that the <ono"able Cou"t allo' the e,humation of Ben :enosa and the "e%
e,amination of the cause of his deathJ allo' the e,amination of Ma"ivic :enosa b# $ualified
ps#choloists and ps#chiat"ists to dete"mine he" state of mind at the time she !illed he"
husbandJ and finall#, to allo' a pa"tial "e%openin of the case a quo to ta!e the testimon# of
said ps#choloists and ps#chiat"ists.
&Attached to the +2:EN- OMNIB+S MO-ION 'as a lette" of D". 2a$uel 5o"tun, then the
onl# $ualified fo"ensic patholoist in the count"#, 'ho opined that the desc"iption of the death
'ound (as culled f"om the post%mo"tem findins, E,hibit 3A3* is mo"e a!in to a unshot 'ound
than a beatin 'ith a lead pipe.
&/?. In a 2ESO4+-ION dated 6. Septembe" 6000, the <ono"able Cou"t pa"tl# "anted
Ma"ivic3s +2:EN- OMNIB+S MO-ION and "emanded the case 3to the t"ial cou"t fo" the
"eception of e,pe"t ps#choloical andEo" ps#chiat"ic opinion on the 3batte"ed 'oman
s#nd"ome3 plea, 'ithin ninet# (.0* da#s f"om notice, and, the"eafte" to fo"th'ith "epo"t to this
Cou"t the p"oceedins ta!en, toethe" 'ith the copies of the -SN and "elevant documenta"#
evidence, if an#, submitted.3
&/8. On /7 Fanua"# 600/, D"a. Natividad A. Da#an appea"ed and testified befo"e the <on.
5o"tunito 4. Mad"ona, 2-C%B"anch 17, O"moc Cit#.
&Immediatel# befo"e D"a. Da#an 'as s'o"n, the Cou"t a quo as!ed if she had inte"vie'ed
Ma"ivic :enosa. D"a. Da#an info"med the Cou"t that inte"vie's 'e"e done at the Penal
Institution in /..., but that the clinical inte"vie's and ps#choloical assessment 'e"e done
at he" clinic.
&D"a. Da#an testified that she has been a clinical ps#choloist fo" t'ent# (60* #ea"s 'ith he"
o'n p"ivate clinic and connected p"esentl# to the De 4a Salle +nive"sit# as a p"ofesso".
Befo"e this, she 'as the <ead of the Ps#cholo# Depa"tment of the Assumption ColleeJ a
membe" of the facult# of Ps#cholo# at the Ateneo de Manila +nive"sit# and St. Foseph3s
ColleeJ and 'as the counselin ps#choloist of the National Defense Collee. She has an
AB in Ps#cholo# f"om the +nive"sit# of the Philippines, a Maste" of A"ts in Clinical
BCounselinC, Ps#cholo# f"om the Ateneo, and a PhD f"om the +.P. She 'as the past
p"esident of the Ps#choloical Association of the Philippines and is a membe" of the
Ame"ican Ps#choloical Association. She is the sec"eta"# of the Inte"national Council of
Ps#choloists f"om about 98 count"iesJ a membe" of the 5o"ensic Ps#cholo# AssociationJ
and a membe" of the ASEAN BCounselinC Association. She is activel# involved 'ith the
Philippine Fudicial Academ#, "ecentl# lectu"in on the socio%demo"aphic and ps#choloical
p"ofile of families involved in domestic violence and nullit# cases. She 'as 'ith the Davide
Commission doin "esea"ch about Milita"# Ps#cholo#. She has '"itten a boo! entitled
3Ene"# :lobal Ps#cholo#3 (toethe" 'ith D"s. Allan -an and Allan Be"na"do*. -he :enosa
case is the fi"st time she has testified as an e,pe"t on batte"ed 'omen as this is the fi"st case
of that natu"e.
&D"a. Da#an testified that fo" the "esea"ch she conducted, on the socio%demo"aphic and
ps#choloical p"ofile of families involved in domestic violence, and nullit# cases, she loo!ed
at about 700 cases ove" a pe"iod of ten (/0* #ea"s and discove"ed that 3the"e a"e lots of
va"iables that cause all of this ma"ital conflicts, f"om domestic violence to infidelit#, to
ps#chiat"ic diso"de".3
&D"a. Da#an desc"ibed domestic violence to comp"ise of 3a lot of incidents of ps#choloical
abuse, ve"bal abuse, and emotional abuse to ph#sical abuse and also se,ual abuse.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&D"a. Da#an testified that in he" studies, 3the batte"ed 'oman usuall# has a ve"# lo' opinion
of he"self. She has a self%defeatin and self%sac"ificin cha"acte"istics. , , , the# usuall#
thin! ve"# lo'l# of themselves and so 'hen the violence 'ould happen, the# usuall# thin!
that the# p"ovo!e it, that the# 'e"e the one 'ho p"ecipitated the violence, the# p"ovo!e thei"
spouse to be ph#sicall#, ve"ball# and even se,uall# abusive to them.3 D"a. Da#an said that
usuall# a batte"ed , , , comes f"om a d#sfunctional famil# o" f"om 3b"o!en homes.3
&D"a. Da#an said that the batte"e", Aust li!e the batte"ed 'oman, 3also has a ve"# lo' opinion
of himself. But then eme"es to have supe"io"it# comple, and it comes out as bein ve"#
a""oant, ve"# hostile, ve"# a"essive and ve"# an"#. -he# also had (sic* a ve"# lo'
tole"ance fo" f"ust"ations. A lot of times the# a"e involved in vices li!e amblin, d"in!in and
d"us. And the# become violent.3 -he batte"e" also usuall# comes f"om a d#sfunctional famil#
'hich ove"%pampe"s them and ma!es them feel entitled to do an#thin. Also, the# see often
ho' thei" pa"ents abused each othe" so 3the"e is a lot of modelin of a"ession in the
famil#.3
&D"a. Da#an testified that the"e a"e a lot of "easons 'h# a batte"ed 'oman does not leave
he" husband; pove"t#, self%blame and uilt that she p"ovo!ed the violence, the c#cle itself
'hich ma!es he" hope he" husband 'ill chane, the belief in he" obliations to !eep the
famil# intact at all costs fo" the sa!e of the child"en.
, , , , , , , , ,
&D"a. Da#an said that abused 'ives "eact diffe"entl# to the violence; some leave the house,
o" loc! themselves in anothe" "oom, o" sometimes t"# to fiht bac! t"ie"in 3ph#sical
violence on both of them.3 She said that in a 3no"mal ma"ital "elationship,3 abuses also
happen, but these a"e 3not consistent, not ch"onic, a"e not happenin da# in BandC da# out.3 In
an 3abno"mal ma"ital "elationship,3 the abuse occu"s da# in and da# out, is lon lastin and
3even 'ould cause hospitali@ation on the victim and even death on the victim.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&D"a. Da#an said that as a "esult of the batte"# of ps#choloical tests she administe"ed, it
'as he" opinion that Ma"ivic fits the p"ofile of a batte"ed 'oman because 3inspite of he"
feelin of self%confidence 'hich 'e can see at times the"e a"e "eall# feelin (sic* of loss,
such feelins of humiliation 'hich she sees he"self as damaed and as a b"o!en pe"son.
And at the same time she still has the imp"int of all the abuses that she had e,pe"ienced in
the past.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&D"a. Da#an said Ma"ivic thouht of he"self as a lovin 'ife and did not even conside" filin
fo" nullit# o" leal sepa"ation inspite of the abuses. It 'as at the time of the t"aed# that
Ma"ivic then thouht of he"self as a victim.
, , , , , , , , ,
&/.. On . 5eb"ua"# 600/, D". Alf"edo PaAa"illo, a ph#sician, 'ho has since passed a'a#,
appea"ed and testified befo"e 2-C%B"anch 17, O"moc Cit#.
&D". PaAa"illo 'as a Diplomate of the Philippine Boa"d of Ps#chiat"#J a 5ello' of the
Philippine Boa"d of Ps#chiat"# and a 5ello' of the Philippine Ps#chiat"# Association. <e 'as
in the p"actice of ps#chiat"# fo" thi"t#%eiht (18* #ea"s. P"io" to bein in p"ivate p"actice, he
'as connected 'ith the Hete"ans Memo"ial Medical Cent"e 'he"e he ained his t"ainin on
ps#chiat"# and neu"olo#. Afte" that, he 'as called to active dut# in the A"med 5o"ces of the
Philippines, assined to the H. 4una Medical Cente" fo" t'ent# si, (69* #ea"s. P"io" to his
"eti"ement f"om ove"nment se"vice, he obtained the "an! of B"iadie" :ene"al. <e obtained
his medical de"ee f"om the +nive"sit# of Santo -omas. <e 'as also a membe" of the )o"ld
Association of Milita"# Su"eonsJ the Lue@on Cit# Medical Societ#J the Caa#an Medical
Societ#J and the Philippine Association of Milita"# Su"eons.
&<e autho"ed 3-he Compa"ative Anal#sis of Ne"vous B"ea!do'n in the Philippine Milita"#
Academ# f"om the Pe"iod /.7> K /.?83 'hich 'as p"esented t'ice in inte"national
con"esses. <e also autho"ed 3-he Mental <ealth of the A"med 5o"ces of the Philippines
60003, 'hich 'as li!e'ise published inte"nationall# and locall#. <e had a medical te,tboo!
published on the use of P"asepam on a Pa"!e%Davis "antJ 'as the fi"st to use Enanthate
(si$uiline*, on an E.2. S$uibb "antJ and he published the use of the d"u Mopiclom in /.87%
89.
&D". PaAa"illo e,plained that ps#chiat"# deals 'ith the functional diso"de" of the mind and
neu"olo# deals 'ith the ailment of the b"ain and spinal co"d enla"ed. Ps#cholo#, on the
othe" hand, is a bachelo" de"ee and a docto"ate de"eeJ 'hile one has to finish medicine to
become a specialist in ps#chiat"#.
&Even onl# in his ?th #ea" as a "esident in H. 4una Medical Cent"e, D". PaAa"illo had al"ead#
encounte"ed a suit involvin violent famil# "elations, and testified in a case in /.9>. In the
A"med 5o"ces of the Philippines, violent famil# disputes abound, and he has seen p"obabl#
ten to t'ent# thousand cases. In those da#s, the p"imo"dial intention of the"ap# 'as
"econciliation. As a "esult of his e,pe"ience 'ith domestic violence cases, he became a
consultant of the Batte"ed )oman Office in Lue@on Cit# unde" Att#. Nenita Dep"o@a.
&As such consultant, he had seen a"ound fo"t# (>0* cases of seve"e domestic violence,
'he"e the"e is ph#sical abuse; such as slappin, pushin, ve"bal abuse, batte"in and
bo,in a 'oman even to an unconscious state such that the 'oman is sometimes confined.
-he affliction of Post%-"aumatic St"ess Diso"de" 3depends on the vulne"abilit# of the victim.3
D". PaAa"illo said that if the victim is not ve"# health#, pe"haps one episode of violence ma#
induce the diso"de"J if the ps#choloical stamina and ph#sioloic constitutional stamina of
the victim is st"one", 3it 'ill ta!e mo"e "epetitive t"auma to p"ecipitate the post%t"aumatic
st"ess diso"de" and this , , , is ve"# dane"ous.3
&In ps#chiat"#, the post%t"aumatic st"ess diso"de" is inco"po"ated unde" the 3an,iet# neu"osis
o" neu"oloic an,cietism.3 It is p"oduced b# 3ove"'helmin b"utalit#, t"auma.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&D". PaAa"illo e,plained that 'ith 3neu"otic an,iet#3, the victim "elives the beatin o" t"auma as
if it 'e"e "eal, althouh she is not actuall# bein beaten at that time. She thin!s 3of nothin
but the suffe"in.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&A 'oman 'ho suffe"s batte"# has a tendenc# to become neu"otic, he" emotional tone is
unstable, and she is i""itable and "estless. She tends to become ha"d%headed and pe"sistent.
She has hihe" sensitivit# and he" 3self%'o"ld3 is damaed.
&D". PaAa"illo said that an abno"mal famil# bac!"ound "elates to an individual3s illness, such
as the dep"ivation of the continuous ca"e and love of the pa"ents. As to the batte"e", he
no"mall# 3inte"nali@es 'hat is a"ound him 'ithin the envi"onment.3 And it becomes his o'n
pe"sonalit#. <e is ve"# competitiveJ he is aimin hih all the timeJ he is so machoJ he sho's
his st"on faNade 3but in it the"e a"e doubts in himself and p"one to act 'ithout thin!in.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&D". PaAa"illo emphasi@ed that 3even thouh 'ithout the p"esence of the p"ecipato" (sic* o" the
one 'ho administe"ed the batte"in, that "e%e,pe"iencin of the t"auma occu""ed (sic*
because the individual cannot cont"ol it. It 'ill Aust come up in he" mind o" in his mind.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&D". PaAa"illo said that a 'oman suffe"in post t"aumatic st"ess diso"de" t"# to defend
themselves, and 3p"ima"il# 'ith !nives. +suall# pointed 'eapons o" an# 'eapon that is
available in the immediate su""oundin o" in a hospital , , , because that abound in the
household.3 <e said a victim "eso"ts to 'eapons 'hen she has 3"eached the lo'est "oc!
bottom of he" life and the"e is no othe" "ecou"se left on he" but to act decisivel#.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&D". PaAa"illo testified that he met Ma"ivic :enosa in his office in an inte"vie' he conducted
fo" t'o (6* hou"s and seventeen (/?* minutes. <e used the ps#choloical evaluation and
social case studies as a help in fo"min his dianosis. <e came out 'ith a Ps#chiat"ic
2epo"t, dated 66 Fanua"# 600/.
, , , , , , , , ,
&On c"oss%e,amination b# the p"ivate p"osecuto", D". PaAa"illo said that at the time she !illed
he" husband Ma"ivic3c mental condition 'as that she 'as 3"e%e,pe"iencin the t"auma.3 <e
said 3that 'e a"e t"#in to e,plain scientificall# that the "e%e,pe"iencin of the t"auma is not
cont"olled b# Ma"ivic. It 'ill Aust come in flashes and p"obabl# at that point in time that thins
happened 'hen the "e%e,pe"iencin of the t"auma flashed in he" mind.3 At the time he
inte"vie'ed Ma"ivic 3she 'as mo"e subdued, she 'as not supe" ale"t an#mo"e , , , she is
mentall# st"ess (sic* because of the p"edicament she is involved.3
, , , , , , , , ,
&60. No "ebuttal evidence o" testimon# 'as p"esented b# eithe" the p"ivate o" the public
p"osecuto". -hus, in acco"d 'ith the 2esolution of this <ono"able Cou"t, the "eco"ds of the
pa"tiall# "e%opened t"ial a quo 'e"e elevated.&
.
Ru,/n1 o2 *&' Tr/a, Cour*
5indin the p"offe"ed theo"# of self%defense untenable, the 2-C ave c"edence to the p"osecution
evidence that appellant had !illed the deceased 'hile he 'as in bed sleepin. 5u"the", the t"ial cou"t
app"eciated the ene"ic a"avatin ci"cumstance of t"eache"#, because Ben :enosa 'as
supposedl# defenseless 'hen he 'as !illed %% l#in in bed asleep 'hen Ma"ivic smashed him 'ith a
pipe at the bac! of his head.
-he capital penalt# havin been imposed, the case 'as elevated to this Cou"t fo" automatic "evie'.
Supervening Circumstances
On 5eb"ua"# /., 6000, appellant filed an +"ent Omnibus Motion p"a#in that this Cou"t allo' (/* the
e,humation of Ben :enosa and the "ee,amination of the cause of his deathJ (6* the e,amination of
appellant b# $ualified ps#choloists and ps#chiat"ists to dete"mine he" state of mind at the time she
had !illed he" spouseJ and (1* the inclusion of the said e,pe"ts3 "epo"ts in the "eco"ds of the case fo"
pu"poses of the automatic "evie' o", in the alte"native, a pa"tial "eopenin of the case fo" the lo'e"
cou"t to admit the e,pe"ts3 testimonies.
On Septembe" 6., 6000, this Cou"t issued a 2esolution "antin in pa"t appellant3s Motion,
"emandin the case to the t"ial cou"t fo" the "eception of e,pe"t ps#choloical andEo" ps#chiat"ic
opinion on the &batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome& pleaJ and "e$ui"in the lo'e" cou"t to "epo"t the"eafte" to
this Cou"t the p"oceedins ta!en as 'ell as to submit copies of the -SN and additional evidence, if
an#.
Actin on the Cou"t3s 2esolution, the t"ial Aude autho"i@ed the e,amination of Ma"ivic b# t'o clinical
ps#choloists, D"s. Natividad Da#an
/0
and Alf"edo PaAa"illo,
//
supposedl# e,pe"ts on domestic
violence. -hei" testimonies, alon 'ith thei" documenta"# evidence, 'e"e then p"esented to and
admitted b# the lo'e" cou"t befo"e finall# bein submitted to this Cou"t to fo"m pa"t of the "eco"ds of
the case.
/6
T&' !((u'(
Appellant assins the follo'in alleed e""o"s of the t"ial cou"t fo" this Cou"t3s conside"ation;
&/. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed in p"omulatin an obviousl# hast# decision 'ithout "eflectin
on the evidence adduced as to self%defense.
&6. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed in findin as a fact that Ben and Ma"ivic :enosa 'e"e leall#
ma""ied and that she 'as the"efo"e liable fo" pa""icide.
&1. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed findin the cause of death to be b# beatin 'ith a pipe.
&>. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed in ino"in and dis"ea"din evidence adduced f"om impa"tial
and unbiased 'itnesses that Ben :enosa 'as a d"un!, a amble", a 'omani@e" and 'ife%
beate"J and fu"the" "avel# e""ed in concludin that Ben :enosa 'as a batte"ed husband.
&7. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed in not "e$ui"in testimon# f"om the child"en of Ma"ivic
:enosa.
&9. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed in concludin that Ma"ivic3s fliht to Manila and he"
subse$uent apoloies 'e"e indicia of uilt, instead of a clea" attempt to save the life of he"
unbo"n child.
&?. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed in concludin that the"e 'as an a"avatin ci"cumstance of
t"eache"#.
&8. -he t"ial cou"t "avel# e""ed in "efusin to "e%evaluate the t"aditional elements in
dete"minin the e,istence of self%defense and defense of foetus in this case, the"eb#
e""oneousl# convictin Ma"ivic :enosa of the c"ime of pa""icide and condemnin he" to the
ultimate penalt# of death.&
/1
In the main, the follo'in a"e the essential leal issues; (/* 'hethe" appellant acted in self%defense
and in defense of he" fetusJ and (6* 'hethe" t"eache"# attended the !illin of Ben :enosa.
T&' Cour*3( Ru,/n1
-he appeal is pa"tl# me"ito"ious.
Co,,a*'ra, Fa)*ua, !((u'(
-he fi"st si, assined e""o"s "aised b# appellant a"e factual in natu"e, if not collate"al to the "esolution
of the p"incipal issues. As consistentl# held b# this Cou"t, the findins of the t"ial cou"t on the
c"edibilit# of 'itnesses and thei" testimonies a"e entitled to a hih de"ee of "espect and 'ill not be
distu"bed on appeal in the absence of an# sho'in that the t"ial Aude "avel# abused his disc"etion
o" ove"loo!ed, misunde"stood o" misapplied mate"ial facts o" ci"cumstances of 'eiht and substance
that could affect the outcome of the case.
/>
In appellant3s fi"st si, assined items, 'e find no "ave abuse of disc"etion, "eve"sible e""o" o"
misapp"eciation of mate"ial facts that 'ould "eve"se o" modif# the t"ial cou"t3s disposition of the case.
In an# event, 'e 'ill no' b"iefl# dispose of these alleed e""o"s of the t"ial cou"t.
First, 'e do not a"ee that the lo'e" cou"t p"omulated &an obviousl# hast# decision 'ithout
"eflectin on the evidence adduced as to self%defense.& )e note that in his /?%pae Decision, Fude
5o"tunito 4. Mad"ona summa"i@ed the testimonies of both the p"osecution and the defense
'itnesses and %% on the basis of those and of the documenta"# evidence on "eco"d %% made his
evaluation, findins and conclusions. <e '"ote a 1%pae discou"se assessin the testimon# and the
self%defense theo"# of the accused. )hile she, o" even this Cou"t, ma# not a"ee 'ith the t"ial
Aude3s conclusions, 'e cannot pe"empto"il# conclude, absent substantial evidence, that he failed to
reflect on the evidence p"esented.
Neithe" do 'e find the appealed Decision to have been made in an &obviousl# hast#& manne". -he
Info"mation had been filed 'ith the lo'e" cou"t on Novembe" />, /..9. -he"eafte", t"ial bean and at
least /1 hea"ins 'e"e held fo" ove" a #ea". It too! the t"ial Aude about t'o months f"om the
conclusion of t"ial to p"omulate his Audment. -hat he conducted the t"ial and "esolved the case
'ith dispatch should not be ta!en aainst him, much less used to condemn him fo" bein undul#
hast#. If at all, the dispatch 'ith 'hich he handled the case should be lauded. In an# case, 'e find
his actions in substantial compliance 'ith his constitutional obliation.
/7
Second, the lo'e" cou"t did not e"" in findin as a fact that Ben :enosa and appellant had been
leall# ma""ied, despite the non%p"esentation of thei" ma""iae cont"act. In People v. Malabago,
/9
this
Cou"t held;
&-he !e# element in pa""icide is the "elationship of the offende" 'ith the victim. In the case of
pa""icide of a spouse, the best p"oof of the "elationship bet'een the accused and the
deceased is the ma""iae ce"tificate. In the absence of a ma""iae ce"tificate, ho'eve", o"al
evidence of the fact of ma""iae ma# be conside"ed b# the t"ial cou"t if such p"oof is not
obAected to.&
-'o of the p"osecution 'itnesses %% namel#, the mothe" and the b"othe" of appellant3s deceased
spouse %% attested in cou"t that Ben had been ma""ied to Ma"ivic.
/?
-he defense "aised no obAection
to these testimonies. Mo"eove", du"in he" di"ect e,amination, appellant he"self made a Audicial
admission of he" ma""iae to Ben.
/8
A,iomatic is the "ule that a Audicial admission is conclusive upon
the pa"t# ma!in it, e,cept onl# 'hen the"e is a sho'in that (/* the admission 'as made th"ouh a
palpable mista!e, o" (6* no admission 'as in fact made.
/.
Othe" than me"el# attac!in the non%
p"esentation of the ma""iae cont"act, the defense offe"ed no p"oof that the admission made b#
appellant in cou"t as to the fact of he" ma""iae to the deceased 'as made th"ouh a palpable
mista!e.
hird, unde" the ci"cumstances of this case, the specific o" di"ect cause of Ben3s death %% 'hethe" b#
a unshot o" b# beatin 'ith a pipe %% has no leal conse$uence. As the Cou"t elucidated in its
Septembe" 6., 6000 2esolution, &BcConside"in that the appellant has admitted the fact of !illin he"
husband and the acts of hittin his nape 'ith a metal pipe and of shootin him at the bac! of his
head, the Cou"t believes that e,humation is unnecessa"#, if not immate"ial, to dete"mine which of
said acts actually caused the victim!s death.& Dete"minin 'hich of these admitted acts caused the
death is not dispositive of the uilt o" defense of appellant.
Fourth, 'e cannot fault the t"ial cou"t fo" not full# app"eciatin evidence that Ben 'as a d"un!,
amble", 'omani@e" and 'ife%beate". +ntil this case came to us fo" automatic "evie', appellant had
not "aised the novel defense of &batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome,& fo" 'hich such evidence ma# have
been "elevant. <e" theo"# of self%defense 'as then the c"ucial issue befo"e the t"ial cou"t. As 'ill be
discussed sho"tl#, the leal "e$uisites of self%defense unde" p"evailin Au"isp"udence ostensibl#
appea" inconsistent 'ith the su""oundin facts that led to the death of the victim. <ence, his pe"sonal
cha"acte", especiall# his past behavio", did not constitute vital evidence at the time.
Fifth, the t"ial cou"t su"el# committed no e""o" in not "e$ui"in testimon# f"om appellant3s child"en. As
co""ectl# elucidated b# the solicito" ene"al, all c"iminal actions a"e p"osecuted unde" the di"ection
and cont"ol of the public p"osecuto", in 'hom lies the disc"etion to dete"mine 'hich 'itnesses and
evidence a"e necessa"# to p"esent.
60
As the fo"me" fu"the" points out, neithe" the t"ial cou"t no" the
p"osecution p"evented appellant f"om p"esentin he" child"en as 'itnesses. -hus, she cannot no'
fault the lo'e" cou"t fo" not "e$ui"in them to testif#.
Finally, me"el# collate"al o" co""obo"ative is the matte" of 'hethe" the fliht of Ma"ivic to Manila and
he" subse$uent apoloies to he" b"othe"%in%la' a"e indicia of he" uilt o" a"e attempts to save the life
of he" unbo"n child. An# "eve"sible e""o" as to the t"ial cou"t3s app"eciation of these ci"cumstances
has little bea"in on the final "esolution of the case.
F/r(* L'1a, !((u'%
Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus
Appellant admits !illin Ben :enosa but, to avoid c"iminal liabilit#, invo!es self%defense andEo"
defense of he" unbo"n child. )hen the accused admits !illin the victim, it is incumbent upon he" to
p"ove an# claimed Austif#in ci"cumstance b# clea" and convincin evidence.
6/
)ell%settled is the "ule
that in c"iminal cases, self%defense (and simila"l#, defense of a st"ane" o" thi"d pe"son* shifts the
bu"den of p"oof f"om the p"osecution to the defense.
66
The Battered Woman Syndrome
In claimin self%defense, appellant "aises the novel theo"# of the batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome. )hile
ne' in Philippine Au"isp"udence, the concept has been "econi@ed in fo"ein Au"isdictions as a fo"m of
self%defense o", at the least, incomplete self%defense.
61
B# app"eciatin evidence that a victim o"
defendant is afflicted 'ith the s#nd"ome, fo"ein cou"ts conve# thei" &unde"standin of the Austifiabl#
fea"ful state of mind of a pe"son 'ho has been c#clicall# abused and cont"olled ove" a pe"iod of
time.&
6>
A batte"ed 'oman has been defined as a 'oman &'ho is "epeatedl# subAected to an# fo"ceful
ph#sical o" ps#choloical behavio" b# a man in o"de" to coe"ce he" to do somethin he 'ants he" to
do 'ithout conce"n fo" he" "ihts. Batte"ed 'omen include 'ives o" 'omen in an# fo"m of intimate
"elationship 'ith men. 5u"the"mo"e, in o"de" to be classified as a batte"ed 'oman, the couple must
o th"ouh the batte"in c#cle at least t'ice. An# 'oman ma# find he"self in an abusive "elationship
'ith a man once. If it occu"s a second time, and she "emains in the situation, she is defined as a
batte"ed 'oman.&
67
Batte"ed 'omen e,hibit common pe"sonalit# t"aits, such as lo' self%esteem, t"aditional beliefs about
the home, the famil# and the female se, "oleJ emotional dependence upon the dominant maleJ the
tendenc# to accept "esponsibilit# fo" the batte"e"3s actionsJ and false hopes that the "elationship 'ill
imp"ove.
69
Mo"e "aphicall#, the batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome is cha"acte"i@ed b# the so%called &c#cle of
violence,&
6?
'hich has th"ee phases; (/* the tension%buildin phaseJ (6* the acute batte"in incidentJ
and (1* the t"an$uil, lovin (o", at least, nonviolent* phase.
68
Du"in the *'n(/on45u/,-/n1 +&a(', mino" batte"in occu"s %% it could be ve"bal o" sliht ph#sical
abuse o" anothe" fo"m of hostile behavio". -he 'oman usuall# t"ies to pacif# the batte"e" th"ouh a
sho' of !ind, nu"tu"in behavio"J o" b# simpl# sta#in out of his 'a#. )hat actuall# happens is that
she allo's he"self to be abused in 'a#s that, to he", a"e compa"ativel# mino". All she 'ants is to
p"event the escalation of the violence e,hibited b# the batte"e". -his 'ish, ho'eve", p"oves to be
double%eded, because he" &placato"#& and passive behavio" leitimi@es his belief that he has the
"iht to abuse he" in the fi"st place.
<o'eve", the techni$ues adopted b# the 'oman in he" effo"t to placate him a"e not usuall#
successful, and the ve"bal andEo" ph#sical abuse 'o"sens. Each pa"tne" senses the imminent loss of
cont"ol and the "o'in tension and despai". E,hausted f"om the pe"sistent st"ess, the batte"ed
'oman soon 'ithd"a's emotionall#. But the mo"e she becomes emotionall# unavailable, the mo"e
the batte"e" becomes an"#, opp"essive and abusive. Often, at some unp"edictable point, the
violence &spi"als out of cont"ol& and leads to an acute batte"in incident.
6.
-he a)u*' 5a**'r/n1 /n)/-'n* is said to be cha"acte"i@ed b# b"utalit#, dest"uctiveness and,
sometimes, death. -he batte"ed 'oman deems this incident as unp"edictable, #et also inevitable.
Du"in this phase, she has no cont"olJ onl# the batte"e" ma# put an end to the violence. Its natu"e
can be as unp"edictable as the time of its e,plosion, and so a"e his "easons fo" endin it. -he
batte"ed 'oman usuall# "eali@es that she cannot "eason 'ith him, and that "esistance 'ould onl#
e,ace"bate he" condition.
At this stae, she has a sense of detachment f"om the attac! and the te""ible pain, althouh she ma#
late" clea"l# "emembe" eve"# detail. <e" appa"ent passivit# in the face of acute violence ma# be
"ationali@ed thus; the batte"e" is almost al'a#s much st"one" ph#sicall#, and she !no's f"om he"
past painful e,pe"ience that it is futile to fiht bac!. Acute batte"in incidents a"e often ve"# savae
and out of cont"ol, such that innocent b#stande"s o" inte"veno"s a"e li!el# to et hu"t.
10
-he final phase of the c#cle of violence beins 'hen the acute batte"in incident ends. Du"in
this *ran6u/, +'r/o-, the couple e,pe"ience p"ofound "elief. On the one hand, the batte"e" ma# sho'
a tende" and nu"tu"in behavio" to'a"ds his pa"tne". <e !no's that he has been viciousl# c"uel and
t"ies to ma!e up fo" it, bein fo" he" fo"iveness and p"omisin neve" to beat he" aain. On the
othe" hand, the batte"ed 'oman also t"ies to convince he"self that the batte"# 'ill neve" happen
aainJ that he" pa"tne" 'ill chane fo" the bette"J and that this &ood, entle and ca"in man& is the
"eal pe"son 'hom she loves.
A batte"ed 'oman usuall# believes that she is the sole ancho" of the emotional stabilit# of the
batte"e". Sensin his isolation and despai", she feels "esponsible fo" his 'ell%bein. -he t"uth,
thouh, is that the chances of his "efo"min, o" see!in o" "eceivin p"ofessional help, a"e ve"# slim,
especiall# if she "emains 'ith him. :ene"all#, onl# afte" she leaves him does he see! p"ofessional
help as a 'a# of ettin he" bac!. =et, it is in this phase of "emo"seful "econciliation that she is most
tho"ouhl# to"mented ps#choloicall#.
-he illusion of absolute inte"dependenc# is 'ell%ent"enched in a batte"ed 'oman3s ps#che. In this
phase, she and he" batte"e" a"e indeed emotionall# dependent on each othe" %% she fo" his nu"tu"ant
behavio", he fo" he" fo"iveness. +nde"neath this mise"able c#cle of &tension, violence and
fo"iveness,& each pa"tne" ma# believe that it is bette" to die than to be sepa"ated. Neithe" one ma#
"eall# feel independent, capable of functionin 'ithout the othe".
1/
istory of !"use
in the Present Case
-o sho' the histo"# of violence inflicted upon appellant, the defense p"esented seve"al 'itnesses.
She he"self desc"ibed he" hea"t%"endin e,pe"ience as follo's;
&A--=. -AB+CANON
L <o' did #ou desc"ibe #ou" ma""iae 'ith Ben :enosaG
A In the fi"st #ea", I lived 'ith him happil# but in the subse$uent #ea" he 'as c"uel to me and
a behavio" of habitual d"in!e".
L =ou said that in the subse$uent #ea" of #ou" ma""iae, #ou" husband 'as abusive to #ou
and c"uel. In 'hat 'a# 'as this abusive and c"uelt# manifested to #ouG
A <e al'a#s p"ovo!e me in eve"#thin, he al'a#s slap me and sometimes he pinned me
do'n on the bed and sometimes beat me.
L <o' man# times did this happenG
A Seve"al times al"ead#.
L )hat did #ou do 'hen these thins happen to #ouG
A I 'ent a'a# to m# mothe" and I "an to m# fathe" and 'e sepa"ate each othe".
L )hat 'as the action of Ben :enosa to'a"ds #ou leavin homeG
A <e is follo'in me, afte" that he souht afte" me.
L )hat 'ill happen 'hen he follo' #ouG
A <e said he chaned, he as!ed fo" fo"iveness and I 'as convinced and afte" that I o to
him and he said 3so""#3.
L Du"in those times that #ou 'e"e the "ecipient of such c"uelt# and abusive behavio" b#
#ou" husband, 'e"e #ou able to see a docto"G
A =es, si".
L )ho a"e these docto"sG
A -he compan# ph#sician, D". Dino Cain, D". 4uce"o and D"a. Ce"illo.
, , , , , , , , ,
L =ou said that #ou sa' a docto" in "elation to #ou" inAu"iesG
A =es, si".
L )ho inflicted these inAu"iesG
A Of cou"se m# husband.
L =ou mean Ben :enosaG
A =es, si".
, , , , , , , , ,
BCou"tC Eto the 'itness
L <o' f"e$uent 'as the alleed c"uelt# that #ou saidG
A Eve"#time he ot d"un!.
L No, f"om the time that #ou said the c"uelt# o" the infliction of inAu"# inflicted on #ou"
occu""ed, afte" #ou" ma""iae, f"om that time on, ho' f"e$uent 'as the occu""enceG
A Eve"#time he ot d"un!.
L Is it dail#, 'ee!l#, monthl# o" ho' man# times in a month o" in a 'ee!G
A -h"ee times a 'ee!.
L Do #ou mean th"ee times a 'ee! he 'ould beat #ouG
A Not necessa"il# that he 'ould beat me but sometimes he 'ill Aust $ua""el me.&
16
2efe""in to his &Out%Patient Cha"t&
11
on Ma"ivic :enosa at the Philphos <ospital, D". Dino D. Cain
bolste"ed he" fo"eoin testimon# on ch"onic batte"# in this manne";
&L So, do #ou have a summa"# of those si, (9* incidents 'hich a"e found in the cha"t of #ou"
clinicG
A =es, si".
L )ho p"epa"ed the list of si, (9* incidents, Docto"G
A I did.
L )ill #ou please "ead the ph#sical findins toethe" 'ith the dates fo" the "eco"d.
A /. Ma# /6, /..0 % ph#sical findins a"e as follo's; <ematoma (2* lo'e" e#elid and "edness
of e#e. Attendin ph#sician; D". 4uce"oJ
6. Ma"ch /0, /..6 % Contusion%<ematoma (4* lo'e" a"bital a"ea, pain and contusion
(2* b"east. Attendin ph#sician; D". Cano"aJ
1. Ma"ch 69, /..1 % Ab"asion, 5u"uncle (4* A,illaJ
>. Auust /, /..> % Pain, mastitis (4* b"east, 6
o
to t"auma. Attendin ph#sician; D".
CainJ
7. Ap"il /?, /..7 % -"auma, tende"ness (2* Shoulde". Attendin ph#sician; D".
Cano"aJ and
9. Fune 7, /..7 % S'ellin Ab"asion (4* le, multiple contusion P"enanc#. Attendin
ph#sician; D". Cano"a.
L Amon the findins, the"e 'e"e t'o (6* incidents 'he"ein #ou 'e"e the attendin
ph#sician, is that co""ectG
A =es, si".
L Did #ou actuall# ph#sical e,amine the accusedG
A =es, si".
L No', oin to #ou" findin no. 1 'he"e #ou 'e"e the one 'ho attended the patient. )hat
do #ou mean b# ab"asion fu"uncle left a,illaG
A Ab"asion is a s!in 'ound usuall# 'hen it comes in contact 'ith somethin "ouh substance
if fo"ce is applied.
L )hat is meant b# fu"uncle a,illaG
A It is seconda"# of the liht infection ove" the ab"asion.
L )hat is meant b# pain mastitis seconda"# to t"aumaG
A So, in this >th episode of ph#sical inAu"ies the"e is an inflammation of left b"east. So, BpainC
meanin the"e is tende"ness. )hen #ou" b"east is t"aumati@ed, the"e is tende"ness pain.
L So, these a"e obAective ph#sical inAu"ies. Docto"G
, , , , , , , , ,
L )e"e #ou able to tal! 'ith the patientG
A =es, si".
L )hat did she tell #ouG
A As a docto"%patient "elationship, 'e need to !no' the cause of these inAu"ies. And she told
me that it 'as done to he" b# he" husband.
L =ou mean, Ben :enosaG
A =es, si".
, , , , , , , , ,
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L B# the 'a# Docto", 'e"e #ou able to ph#sical e,amine the accused sometime in the month
of Novembe", /..7 'hen this incident happenedG
A As pe" "eco"d, #es.
L )hat 'as the dateG
A It 'as on Novembe" 9, /..7.
L So, did #ou actuall# see the accused ph#sicall#G
A =es, si".
L On Novembe" 9, /..7, 'ill #ou please tell this <ono"able Cou"t, 'as the patient p"enantG
A =es, si".
L Bein a docto", can #ou mo"e enae at 'hat stae of p"enanc# 'as sheG
A Eiht (8* months p"enant.
L So in othe" 'o"ds, it 'as an advance stae of p"enanc#G
A =es, si".
L )hat 'as #ou" Novembe" 9, /..7 e,amination, 'as it an e,amination about he"
p"enanc# o" fo" some othe" findinsG
A No, she 'as admitted fo" h#pe"tension headache 'hich complicates he" p"enanc#.
L )hen #ou said admitted, meanin she 'as confinedG
A =es, si".
L 5o" ho' man# da#sG
A One da#.
L )he"eG
A At P<I4P<OS <ospital.
, , , , , , , , ,
L 4ets o bac! to the clinical histo"# of Ma"ivic :enosa. =ou said that #ou 'e"e able to
e,amine he" pe"sonall# on Novembe" 9, /..7 and she 'as 8 months p"enant.
)hat is this all aboutG
A Because she has this p"oblem of tension headache seconda"# to h#pe"tension and I thin! I
have a "eco"d he"e, also the same pe"iod f"om /.8. to /..7, she had a consultation fo"
t'ent#%th"ee (61* times.
L 5o" 'hatG
A -ension headache.
L Can 'e sa# that speciall# du"in the latte" consultation, that the patient had h#pe"tensionG
A -he patient definitel# had h#pe"tension. It 'as "ef"acto"# to ou" t"eatment. She does not
"esponse 'hen the medication 'as iven to he", because tension headache is mo"e o" less
st"ess "elated and emotional in natu"e.
L )hat did #ou deduce of tension headache 'hen #ou said is emotional in natu"eG
A 5"om 'hat I deduced as pa"t of ou" ph#sical e,amination of the patient is the famil# histo"#
in line of ivin the "oot cause of 'hat is causin this disease. So, f"om the moment #ou as!
to the patient all comes f"om the domestic p"oblem.
L =ou mean p"oblem in he" householdG
A P"obabl#.
L Can famil# t"ouble cause elevation of blood p"essu"e, Docto"G
A =es, if it is emotionall# "elated and st"essful it can cause inc"eases in h#pe"tension 'hich is
unfo"tunatel# does not "esponse to the medication.
L In Novembe" 9, /..7, the date of the incident, did #ou ta!e the blood p"essu"e of the
accusedG
A On Novembe" 9, /..7 consultation, the blood p"essu"e 'as /80E/60.
L Is this conside"ed h#pe"tensionG
A =es, si", seve"e.
L Conside"in that she 'as 8 months p"enant, #ou mean this is dane"ous level of blood
p"essu"eG
A It 'as dane"ous to the child o" to the fetus.&
1>
Anothe" defense 'itness, -eodo"o Sa"abia, a fo"me" neihbo" of the :enosas in Isabel, 4e#te,
testified that he had seen the couple $ua""elin seve"al timesJ and that on some occasions Ma"ivic
'ould "un to him 'ith b"uises, confidin that the inAu"ies 'e"e inflicted upon he" b# Ben.
17
Ecel A"ano also testified
19
that fo" a numbe" of times she had been as!ed b# Ma"ivic to sleep at the
:enosa house, because the latte" fea"ed that Ben 'ould come home d"un! and hu"t he". On one
occasion that Ecel did sleep ove", she 'as a'a!ened about ten o3cloc! at niht, because the couple
&'e"e ve"# nois# O and I hea"d somethin 'as b"o!en li!e a vase.& -hen Ma"ivic came "unnin into
Ecel3s "oom and loc!ed the doo". Ben sho'ed up b# the 'indo' "ill atop a chai", sca"in them 'ith
a !nife.
On the afte"noon of Novembe" /7, /..7, Ma"ivic aain as!ed he" help %% this time to find Ben %% but
the# 'e"e unable to. -he# "etu"ned to the :enosa home, 'he"e the# found him al"ead# d"un!. Aain
af"aid that he miht hu"t he", Ma"ivic as!ed he" to sleep at thei" house. Seein his state of
d"un!enness, Ecel hesitatedJ and 'hen she hea"d the couple sta"t a"uin, she decided to leave.
On that same niht that culminated in the death of Ben :enosa, at least th"ee othe" 'itnesses sa'
o" hea"d the couple $ua""elin.
1?
Ma"ivic "elates in detail the follo'in bac!d"op of the fateful niht
'hen life 'as snuffed out of him, sho'in in the p"ocess a vivid pictu"e of his c"uelt# to'a"ds he";
&A--=. -AB+CANON;
L Please tell this Cou"t, can #ou "ecall the incident in Novembe" /7, /..7 in the eveninG
A )hole mo"nin and in the afte"noon, I 'as in the office 'o"!in then afte" office hou"s, I
boa"ded the se"vice bus and 'ent to Bil'an. )hen I "eached Bil'an, I immediatel# as!ed
m# son, 'he"e 'as his fathe", then m# second child said, 3he 'as not home #et3. I 'as
'o""ied because that 'as pa#da#, I 'as anticipatin that he 'as amblin. So 'hile 'aitin
fo" him, m# eldest son a""ived f"om school, I p"epa"ed dinne" fo" m# child"en.
L -his is evenin of Novembe" /7, /..7G
A =es, si".
L )hat time did Ben :enosa a""iveG
A )hen he a""ived, I 'as not the"e, I 'as in Isabel loo!in fo" him.
L So 'hen he a""ived #ou 'e"e in Isabel loo!in fo" himG
A =es, si".
L Did #ou come bac! to #ou" houseG
A =es, si".
L B# the 'a#, 'he"e 'as #ou" conAual "esidence situated this timeG
A Bil'an.
L Is this #ou" house o" #ou a"e "entinG
A 2entin.
L )hat time 'e"e #ou able to come bac! in #ou" "esidence at Bil'anG
A I 'ent bac! a"ound almost 8;00 o3cloc!.
L )hat happened 'hen #ou a""ived in #ou" "esidenceG
A )hen I a""ived home 'ith m# cousin Ecel 'hom I "e$uested to sleep 'ith me at that time
because I had fea"s that he 'as aain d"un! and I 'as 'o""ied that he 'ould aain beat me
so I "e$uested m# cousin to sleep 'ith me, but she "esisted because she had fea"s that the
same thin 'ill happen aain last #ea".
L )ho 'as this cousin of #ou"s 'ho #ou "e$uested to sleep 'ith #ouG
A Ecel A"aIo, the one 'ho testified.
L Did Ecel sleep 'ith #ou in #ou" house on that eveninG
A No, because she e,p"essed fea"s, she said he" fathe" 'ould not allo' he" because of Ben.
L Du"in this pe"iod Novembe" /7, /..7, 'e"e #ou p"enantG
A =es, 8 months.
L <o' advance 'as #ou" p"enanc#G
A Eiht (8* months.
L )as the bab# subse$uentl# bo"nG
A =es, si".
L )hat3s the name of the bab# #ou 'e"e ca""#in at that timeG
A Ma"ie Bianca.
L )hat time 'e"e #ou able to meet pe"sonall# #ou" husbandG
A =es, si".
L )hat timeG
A )hen I a""ived home, he 'as the"e al"ead# in his usual behavio".
L )ill #ou tell this Cou"t 'hat 'as his dispositionG
A <e 'as d"un! aain, he 'as #ellin in his usual un"ul# behavio".
L )hat 'as he #ellin all aboutG
A <is usual attitude 'hen he ot d"un!.
L =ou said that 'hen #ou a""ived, he 'as d"un! and #ellin at #ouG )hat else did he do if
an#G
A <e is nain at me fo" follo'in him and he da"ed me to $ua""el him.
L )hat 'as the cause of his nain o" $ua""elin at #ou if #ou !no'G
A <e 'as an"# at me because I 'as follo'in , , , him, loo!in fo" him. I 'as Aust 'o""ied
he miht be ove"l# d"un! and he 'ould beat me aain.
L =ou said that he 'as #ellin at #ou, 'hat else, did he do to #ou if an#G
A <e 'as nain at me at that time and I Aust ino"e him because I 'ant to avoid t"ouble fo"
fea" that he 'ill beat me aain. Pe"haps he 'as disappointed because I Aust ino"e him of his
p"ovocation and he s'itch off the liht and I said to him, 3'h# did #ou s'itch off the liht
'hen the child"en 'e"e the"e.3 At that time I 'as also attendin to m# child"en 'ho 'e"e
doin thei" assinments. <e 'as an"# 'ith me fo" not ans'e"in his challene, so he 'ent
to the !itchen and BotC a bolo and cut the antenna 'i"e to stop me f"om 'atchin television.
L )hat did he do 'ith the boloG
A <e cut the antenna 'i"e to !eep me f"om 'atchin -.H.
L )hat else happened afte" he cut the 'i"eG
A <e s'itch off the liht and the child"en 'e"e shoutin because the# 'e"e sca"ed and he
'as al"ead# holdin the bolo.
L <o' do #ou desc"ibed this boloG
A / /E6 feet.
L )hat 'as the bolo used fo" usuall#G
A 5o" choppin meat.
L =ou said the child"en 'e"e sca"ed, 'hat else happened as Ben 'as ca""#in that boloG
A <e 'as about to attac! me so I "un to the "oom.
L )hat do #ou mean that he 'as about to attac! #ouG
A )hen I attempt to "un he held m# hands and he 'hi"led me and I fell to the bedside.
L So 'hen he 'hi"led #ou, 'hat happened to #ouG
A I sc"eamed fo" help and then he left.
L =ou said ea"lie" that he 'hi"led #ou and #ou fell on the bedsideG
A =es, si".
L =ou sc"eamed fo" help and he left, do #ou !no' 'he"e he 'as oinG
A Outside pe"haps to d"in! mo"e.
L )hen he left 'hat did #ou do in that pa"ticula" timeG
A I pac!ed all his clothes.
L )hat 'as #ou" "eason in pac!in his clothesG
A I 'anted him to leave us.
L Du"in this time, 'he"e 'e"e #ou" child"en, 'hat 'e"e thei" "eactionsG
A Afte" a couple of hou"s, he 'ent bac! aain and he ot an"# 'ith me fo" pac!in his
clothes, then he d"aed me aain of the bed"oom holdin m# nec!.
L =ou said that 'hen Ben came bac! to #ou" house, he d"aed #ouG <o' did he d"a #ouG
CO+2- IN-E2P2E-E2;
-he 'itness demonst"ated to the Cou"t b# usin he" "iht hand fle,ed fo"cibl# in he"
f"ont nec!*
A And he d"aed me to'a"ds the doo" bac!'a"d.
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L )he"e did he b"in #ouG
A Outside the bed"oom and he 'anted to et somethin and then he !ept on shoutin at me
that 3#ou miht as 'ell be !illed so the"e 'ill be nobod# to na me.3
L So #ou said that he d"aed #ou to'a"ds the d"a'e"G
A =es, si".
L )hat is the"e in the d"a'e"G
A I 'as a'a"e that it 'as a un.
CO+2- IN-E2P2E-E2;
(At this Aunctu"e the 'itness sta"ted c"#in*.
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L )e"e #ou actuall# b"ouht to the d"a'e"G
A =es, si".
L )hat happened 'hen #ou 'e"e b"ouht to that d"a'e"G
A <e d"aed me to'a"ds the d"a'e" and he 'as about to open the d"a'e" but he could not
open it because he did not have the !e# then he pulled his 'allet 'hich contained a blade
about 1 inches lon and I 'as a'a"e that he 'as oin to !ill me and I smashed his a"m and
then the 'allet and the blade fell. -he one he used to open the d"a'e" I sa', it 'as a pipe
about that lon, and 'hen he 'as about to pic!%up the 'allet and the blade, I smashed him
then I "an to the othe" "oom, and on that ve"# moment eve"#thin on m# mind 'as to pit# on
m#self, then the feelin I had on that ve"# moment 'as the same 'hen I 'as admitted in
P<I4P<OS Clinic, I 'as about to vomit.
CO+2- IN-E2P2E-E2;
(-he 'itness at this Aunctu"e is c"#in intensel#*.
, , , , , , , , ,
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L -al!in of d"a'e", is this d"a'e" outside #ou" "oomG
A Outside.
L In 'hat pa"t of the houseG
A Dinin.
L )he"e 'e"e the child"en du"in that timeG
A M# child"en 'e"e al"ead# asleep.
L =ou mean the# 'e"e inside the "oomG
A =es, si".
L =ou said that he d"opped the blade, fo" the "eco"d 'ill #ou please desc"ibe this blade
about 1 inches lon, ho' does it loo! li!eG
A -h"ee (1* inches lon and /E6 inch 'ide.
L Is it a fle,ible bladeG
A It3s a cutte".
L <o' do #ou desc"ibe the blade, is it sha"p both edesG
A =es, because he once used it to me.
L <o' did he do itG
A <e 'anted to cut m# th"oat.
L )ith the same bladeG
A =es, si", that 'as the obAect used 'hen he intimidate me.&
18
In addition, D"a. Natividad Da#an 'as called b# the 2-C to testif# as an e,pe"t 'itness to assist it in
unde"standin the ps#che of a batte"ed pe"son. She had met 'ith Ma"ivic :enosa fo" five sessions
totalin about seventeen hou"s. Based on thei" tal!s, the fo"me" b"iefl# "elated the latte"3s o"deal to
the cou"t a quo as follo's;
&L; )hat can #ou sa#, that #ou found Ma"ivic as a batte"ed 'ifeG Could #ou in la#man3s te"m
desc"ibe to this Cou"t 'hat he" life 'as li!e as said to #ouG
A; )hat I "emembe" happened then 'as it 'as mo"e than ten #ea"s, that she 'as suffe"in
emotional anuish. -he"e 'e"e a lot of instances of abuses, to emotional abuse, to ve"bal
abuse and to ph#sical abuse. -he husband had a ve"# meae" income, she 'as the one 'ho
'as p"acticall# the b"ead ea"ne" of the famil#. -he husband 'as involved in a lot of vices,
oin out 'ith ba"!adas, d"in!in, even 'omani@in bein involved in coc!fiht and oin
home ve"# an"# and 'hich 'ill t"ie" a lot of ph#sical abuse. She also had the e,pe"ience
a lot of tauntin f"om the husband fo" the "eason that the husband even accused he" of
infidelit#, the husband 'as sa#in that the child she 'as ca""#in 'as not his o'n. So she
'as ve"# an"#, she 'as at the same time ve"# dep"essed because she 'as also a'a"e,
almost li!e livin in pu"ato"# o" even hell 'hen it 'as happenin da# in and da# out.&
1.
In c"oss%e,aminin D"a. Da#an, the public p"osecuto" not me"el# elicited, but 'ittinl# o" un'ittinl#
put fo"'a"d, additional suppo"tin evidence as sho'n belo';
&L In #ou" fi"st encounte" 'ith the appellant in this case in /..., 'he"e #ou tal!ed to he"
about th"ee hou"s, 'hat 'as the most "elevant info"mation did #ou athe"G
A -he most "elevant info"mation 'as the t"aed# that happened. -he most impo"tant
info"mation 'e"e escalatin abuses that she had e,pe"ienced du"in he" ma"ital life.
L Befo"e #ou met he" in /... fo" th"ee hou"s, 'e p"esume that #ou al"ead# !ne' of the facts
of the case o" at least #ou have substantial !no'lede of the facts of the caseG
A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not !no' 'hethe" I can conside" them as
substantial.
, , , , , , , , ,
L Did #ou athe" an info"mation f"om Ma"ivic that on the side of he" husband the# 'e"e fond
of batte"in thei" 'ivesG
A I also hea"d that f"om he"G
L =ou hea"d that f"om he"G
A =es, si".
L Did #ou as! fo" a complete e,ample 'ho a"e the "elatives of he" husband that 'e"e fond
of batte"in thei" 'ivesG
A )hat I "emembe" that the"e 'e"e b"othe"s of he" husband 'ho a"e also batte"in thei"
'ives.
L Did she not info"m #ou that the"e 'as an instance that she sta#ed in a hotel in O"moc
'he"e he" husband follo'ed he" and batte"ed Bhe"C seve"al times in that "oomG
A She told me about that.
L Did she info"m #ou in 'hat hotel in O"mocG
A Si", I could not "emembe" but I 'as told that she 'as batte"ed in that "oom.
L Seve"al times in that "oomG
A =es, si". )hat I "emembe" 'as that the"e is no p"oblem about bein batte"ed, it "eall#
happened.
L Bein an e,pe"t 'itness, ou" Au"isp"udence is not complete on sa#in this matte". I thin!
that is the fi"st time that 'e have this in the Philippines, 'hat is #ou" opinionG
A Si", m# opinion is, she is "eall# a batte"ed 'ife and in this !ind happened, it 'as "eall# a
self%defense. I also believe that the"e had been p"ovocation and I also believe that she
became a diso"de"ed pe"son. She had to suffe" an,iet# "eaction because of all the batte"in
that happened and so she became an abno"mal pe"son 'ho had lost she3s not du"in the
time and that is 'h# it happened because of all the ph#sical batte"in, emotional batte"in,
all the ps#choloical abuses that she had e,pe"ienced f"om he" husband.
L I do believe that she is a batte"ed 'ife. )as she e,t"emel# batte"edG
A Si", it is an e,t"eme fo"m of batte"in. =es.
>0
Pa"entheticall#, the c"edibilit# of appellant 'as demonst"ated as follo's;
&L And #ou also said that #ou administe"ed BtheC obAective pe"sonalit# test, 'hat , , , Bis thisC
all aboutG
A -he obAective pe"sonalit# test is the Millon Clinical Multia,ial Invento"#. -he pu"pose of that
test is to find out about the l#in p"oneBneCss of the pe"son.
L )hat do #ou mean b# thatG
A Meanin, am I dealin 'ith a client 'ho is tellin me the t"uth, o" is she someone 'ho can
e,ae"ate o" , , , B'illC tell a lieBGC
L And 'hat did #ou discove" on the basis of this obAective pe"sonalit# testG
A She 'as a pe"son 'ho passed the honest# test. Meanin she is a pe"son that I can t"ust.
-hat the data that I3m athe"in f"om he" a"e the t"uth.&
>/
-he othe" e,pe"t 'itness p"esented b# the defense, D". Alf"edo PaAa"illo, testified on his Ps#chiat"ic
2epo"t,
>6
'hich 'as based on his inte"vie' and e,amination of Ma"ivic :enosa. -he 2epo"t said that
du"in the fi"st th"ee #ea"s of he" ma""iae to Ben, eve"#thin loo!ed ood %% the atmosphe"e 'as
fine, no"mal and happ# %% until &Ben sta"ted to be att"acted to othe" i"ls and 'as also enticed inBtoC
amblinB,C especiall# coc!fihtin. , , ,. At the same time Ben 'as often Aoinin his bar"ada in
d"in!in sp"ees.&
-he d"in!in sp"ees of Ben "eatl# chaned the attitude he sho'ed to'a"d his famil#, pa"ticula"l# to
his 'ife. -he 2epo"t continued; &At fi"st, it 'as ve"bal and emotional abuses but as time passed, he
became ph#sicall# abusive. Ma"ivic claimed that the viciousness of he" husband 'as p"o"essive
eve"# time he ot d"un!. It 'as a painful o"deal Ma"ivic had to anticipate 'heneve" she suspected
that he" husband 'ent fo" a d"in!in Bsp"eeC. -he# had been ma""ied fo" t'elve #ea"sBJC and
p"acticall# mo"e than eiht #ea"s, she 'as batte"ed and malt"eated "elentlessl# and me"cilessl# b#
he" husband 'heneve" he 'as d"un!.&
Ma"ivic souht the help of he" mothe"%in%la', but he" effo"ts 'e"e in vain. 5u"the" $uotin f"om the
2epo"t, &BsChe also souht the advice and help of close "elatives and 'ell%meanin f"iends in spite of
he" feelin ashamed of 'hat 'as happenin to he". But incessant batte"in became mo"e and mo"e
f"e$uent and mo"e seve"e. , , ,.&
>1
5"om the totalit# of evidence p"esented, the"e is indeed no doubt in the Cou"t3s mind that Appellant
Ma"ivic :enosa 'as a seve"el# abused pe"son.
#ffect of Battery on !ppellant
Because of the "ecu""in c#cles of violence e,pe"ienced b# the abused 'oman, he" state of mind
metamo"phoses. In dete"minin he" state of mind, 'e cannot "el# me"el# on the Audment of an
o"dina"#, "easonable pe"son 'ho is evaluatin the events immediatel# su""oundin the incident. A
Canadian cou"t has aptl# pointed out that e,pe"t evidence on the ps#choloical effect of batte"in on
'ives and common la' pa"tne"s a"e both "elevant and necessa"#. &<o' can the mental state of the
appellant be app"eciated 'ithout itG -he ave"ae membe" of the public ma# as!; )h# 'ould a
'oman put up 'ith this !ind of t"eatmentG )h# should she continue to live 'ith such a manG <o'
could she love a pa"tne" 'ho beat he" to the point of "e$ui"in hospitali@ationG )e 'ould e,pect the
'oman to pac! he" bas and o. )he"e is he" self%"espectG )h# does she not cut loose and ma!e a
ne' life fo" he"selfG Such is the "eaction of the ave"ae pe"son conf"onted 'ith the so%called
3batte"ed 'ife s#nd"ome.3&
>>
-o unde"stand the s#nd"ome p"ope"l#, ho'eve", one3s vie'point should not be d"a'n f"om that of an
o"dina"#, "easonable pe"son. )hat oes on in the mind of a pe"son 'ho has been subAected to
"epeated, seve"e beatins ma# not be consistent 'ith %% na#, comp"ehensible to %% those 'ho have
not been th"ouh a simila" e,pe"ience. E,pe"t opinion is essential to cla"if# and "efute common
m#ths and misconceptions about batte"ed 'omen.
>7
-he theo"# of B)S fo"mulated b# 4eno"e )al!e", as 'ell as he" "esea"ch on domestic violence, has
had a sinificant impact in the +nited States and the +nited Pindom on the t"eatment and
p"osecution of cases, in 'hich a batte"ed 'oman is cha"ed 'ith the !illin of he" violent pa"tne".
-he ps#choloist e,plains that the c#clical natu"e of the violence inflicted upon the batte"ed 'oman
immobili@es the latte"3s &abilit# to act decisivel# in he" o'n inte"ests, ma!in he" feel t"apped in the
"elationship 'ith no means of escape.&
>9
In he" #ea"s of "esea"ch, D". )al!e" found that &the abuse
often escalates at the point of sepa"ation and batte"ed 'omen a"e in "eate" dane" of d#in then.&
>?
Co""obo"atin these "esea"ch findins, D"a. Da#an said that &the batte"ed 'oman usuall# has a ve"#
lo' opinion of he"self. She has , , , self%defeatin and self%sac"ificin cha"acte"istics. , , , B)Chen
the violence 'ould happen, the# usuall# thin! that the# p"ovo!eBdC it, that the# 'e"e the oneBsC 'ho
p"ecipitated the violenceBJ thatC the# p"ovo!eBdC thei" spouse to be ph#sicall#, ve"ball# and even
se,uall# abusive to them.&
>8
Acco"din to D"a. Da#an, the"e a"e a lot of "easons 'h# a batte"ed 'oman does not "eadil# leave an
abusive pa"tne" %% pove"t#, self%blame and uilt a"isin f"om the latte"3s belief that she p"ovo!ed the
violence, that she has an obliation to !eep the famil# intact at all cost fo" the sa!e of thei" child"en,
and that she is the onl# hope fo" he" spouse to chane.
>.
-he testimon# of anothe" e,pe"t 'itness, D". PaAa"illo, is also helpful. <e had p"eviousl# testified in
suits involvin violent famil# "elations, havin evaluated &p"obabl# ten to t'ent# thousand& violent
famil# disputes 'ithin the A"med 5o"ces of the Philippines, 'he"ein such cases abounded. As a
"esult of his e,pe"ience 'ith domestic violence cases, he became a consultant of the Batte"ed
)oman Office in Lue@on Cit#. As such, he ot involved in about fo"t# (>0* cases of seve"e domestic
violence, in 'hich the ph#sical abuse on the 'oman 'ould sometimes even lead to he" loss of
consciousness.
70
D". PaAa"illo e,plained that &ove"'helmin b"utalit#, t"auma& could "esult in postt"aumatic st"ess
diso"de", a fo"m of &an,iet# neu"osis o" neu"oloic an,ietism.&
7/
Afte" bein "epeatedl# and seve"el#
abused, batte"ed pe"sons &ma# believe that the# a"e essentiall# helpless, lac!in po'e" to chane
thei" situation. , , , BACcute batte"in incidents can have the effect of stimulatin the development of
copin "esponses to the t"auma at the e,pense of the victim3s abilit# to muste" an active "esponse to
t"# to escape fu"the" t"auma. 5u"the"mo"e, , , , the victim ceases to believe that an#thin she can
do 'ill have a p"edictable positive effect.&
76
A stud#
71
conducted b# Ma"tin Seliman, a ps#choloist at the +nive"sit# of Penns#lvania, found that
&even if a pe"son has cont"ol ove" a situation, but believes that she does not, she 'ill be mo"e li!el#
to "espond to that situation 'ith copin "esponses "athe" than t"#in to escape.& <e said that it 'as
the conitive aspect %% the individual3s thouhts %% that p"oved all%impo"tant. <e "efe""ed to this
phenomenon as &lea"ned helplessness.& &B-Che t"uth o" facts of a situation tu"n out to be less
impo"tant than the individual3s set of beliefs o" pe"ceptions conce"nin the situation. Batte"ed 'omen
don3t attempt to leave the batte"in situation, even 'hen it ma# seem to outside"s that escape is
possible, because the# cannot p"edict thei" o'n safet#J the# believe that nothin the# o" an#one else
does 'ill alte" thei" te""ible ci"cumstances.&
7>
-hus, Aust as the batte"ed 'oman believes that she is someho' "esponsible fo" the violent behavio"
of he" pa"tne", she also believes that he is capable of !illin he", and that the"e is no
escape.
77
Batte"ed 'omen feel unsafe, suffe" f"om pe"vasive an,iet#, and usuall# fail to leave the
"elationship.
79
+nless a shelte" is available, she sta#s 'ith he" husband, not onl# because she
t#picall# lac!s a means of self%suppo"t, but also because she fea"s that if she leaves she 'ould be
found and hu"t even mo"e.
7?
In the instant case, 'e meticulousl# scou"ed the "eco"ds fo" specific evidence establishin that
appellant, due to the "epeated abuse she had suffe"ed f"om he" spouse ove" a lon pe"iod of time,
became afflicted 'ith the batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome. )e, ho'eve", failed to find sufficient evidence
that 'ould suppo"t such a conclusion. Mo"e specificall#, 'e failed to find ample evidence that 'ould
confi"m the p"esence of the essential cha"acte"istics of B)S.
-he defense fell sho"t of p"ovin all th"ee phases of the &c#cle of violence& supposedl#
cha"acte"i@in the "elationship of Ben and Ma"ivic :enosa. No doubt the"e 'e"e acute batte"in
incidents. In "elatin to the cou"t a quo ho' the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben sta"ted,
Ma"ivic pe"fectl# desc"ibed the tension%buildin phase of the c#cle. She 'as able to e,plain in
ade$uate detail the t#pical cha"acte"istics of this stae. <o'eve", that sinle incident does not p"ove
the e,istence of the s#nd"ome. In othe" 'o"ds, she failed to p"ove that in at least anothe" batte"in
episode in the past, she had one th"ouh a simila" patte"n.
<o' did the tension bet'een the pa"tne"s usuall# a"ise o" build up p"io" to acute batte"inG <o' did
Ma"ivic no"mall# "espond to Ben3s "elativel# mino" abusesG )hat means did she emplo# to t"# to
p"event the situation f"om developin into the ne,t (mo"e violent* staeG
Neithe" did appellant p"offe" sufficient evidence in "ea"d to the thi"d phase of the c#cle. She simpl#
mentioned that she 'ould usuall# "un a'a# to he" mothe"3s o" fathe"3s houseJ
78
that Ben 'ould see!
he" out, as! fo" he" fo"iveness and p"omise to chaneJ and that believin his 'o"ds, she 'ould
"etu"n to thei" common abode.
Did she eve" feel that she p"ovo!ed the violent incidents bet'een he" and he" spouseG Did she
believe that she 'as the onl# hope fo" Ben to "efo"mG And that she 'as the sole suppo"t of his
emotional stabilit# and 'ell%beinG Conve"sel#, ho' dependent 'as she on himG Did she feel
helpless and t"apped in thei" "elationshipG Did both of them "ea"d death as p"efe"able to
sepa"ationG
In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself her factual e#periences and thoughts that
would clearly and fully demonstrate the essential characteristics of the syndrome.
-he Cou"t app"eciates the "atiocinations iven b# the e,pe"t 'itnesses fo" the defense. Indeed, the#
'e"e able to e,plain full#, albeit me"el# theo"eticall# and scientificall#, ho' the pe"sonalit# of the
batte"ed 'oman usuall# evolved o" dete"io"ated as a "esult of "epeated and seve"e beatins inflicted
upon he" b# he" pa"tne" o" spouse. -he# co""obo"ated each othe"3s testimonies, 'hich 'e"e culled
f"om thei" nume"ous studies of hund"eds of actual cases. $owever, they failed to present in court the
factual e#periences and thoughts that appellant had related to them %% if at all %% based on which they
concluded that she had B&S.
)e emphasi@e that in c"iminal cases, all the elements of a modif#in ci"cumstance must be p"oven
in o"de" to be app"eciated. -o "epeat, the "eco"ds lac! suppo"tin evidence that 'ould establish all
the essentials of the batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome as manifested specificall# in the case of the
:enosas.
BWS as Self-Defense
In an# event, the e,istence of the s#nd"ome in a "elationship does not in itself establish the leal
"iht of the 'oman to !ill he" abusive pa"tne". Evidence must still be conside"ed in the conte,t of self%
defense.
7.
5"om the e,pe"t opinions discussed ea"lie", the Cou"t "ec!ons fu"the" that c"ucial to the B)S
defense is the state of mind of the batte"ed 'oman at the time of the offense
90
%% she must have
actuall# fea"ed imminent ha"m f"om he" batte"e" and honestl# believed in the need to !ill him in o"de"
to save he" life.
Settled in ou" Au"isp"udence, ho'eve", is the "ule that the one 'ho "eso"ts to self%defense must face
a real threaton one3s lifeJ and the pe"il souht to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not me"el#
imaina"#.
9/
-hus, the 2evised Penal Code p"ovides the follo'in "e$uisites and effect of self%
defense;
96
&A"t. //. 'ustifying circumstances. %% -he follo'in do not incu" an# c"iminal liabilit#;
&/. An#one 'ho acts in defense of his pe"son o" "ihts, p"ovided that the follo'in
ci"cumstances concu"J
First. +nla'ful a"essionJ
Second. 2easonable necessit# of the means emplo#ed to p"event o" "epel itJ
hird. 4ac! of sufficient p"ovocation on the pa"t of the pe"son defendin himself.&
+nla'ful a"ession is the most essential element of self%defense.
91
It p"esupposes actual, sudden
and une,pected attac! %% o" an imminent dane" the"eof %% on the life o" safet# of a pe"son.
9>
In the
p"esent case, ho'eve", acco"din to the testimon# of Ma"ivic he"self, the"e 'as a sufficient time
inte"val bet'een the unla'ful a"ession of Ben and he" fatal attac! upon him. She had al"ead#
been able to 'ithd"a' f"om his violent behavio" and escape to thei" child"en3s bed"oom. Du"in that
time, he appa"entl# ceased his attac! and 'ent to bed. -he "ealit# o" even the imminence of the
dane" he posed had ended altoethe". <e 'as no lone" in a position that p"esented an actual
th"eat on he" life o" safet#.
<ad Ben still been a'aitin Ma"ivic 'hen she came out of thei" child"en3s bed"oom %% and based on
past violent incidents, the"e 'as a "eat p"obabilit# that he 'ould still have pu"sued he" and inflicted
"ave" ha"m %% then, the imminence of the "eal th"eat upon he" life 'ould not have ceased #et.
)he"e the b"utali@ed pe"son is al"ead# suffe"in f"om B)S, fu"the" evidence of actual ph#sical
assault at the time of the !illin is not "e$ui"ed. Incidents of domestic batte"# usuall# have a
p"edictable patte"n. -o "e$ui"e the batte"ed pe"son to a'ait an obvious, deadl# attac! befo"e she can
defend he" life &'ould amount to sentencin he" to 3mu"de" b# installment.3&
97
Still, impendin dane"
(based on the conduct of the victim in p"evious batte"in episodes* p"io" to the defendant3s use of
deadl# fo"ce must be sho'n. -h"eatenin behavio" o" communication can satisf# the "e$ui"ed
imminence of dane".
99
Conside"in such ci"cumstances and the e,istence of B)S, self%defense
ma# be app"eciated.
)e "eite"ate the p"inciple that a"ession, if not continuous, does not 'a""ant self%defense.
9?
In the
absence of such a"ession, the"e can be no self%defense %% complete o" incomplete %% on the pa"t of
the victim.
98
-hus, Ma"ivic3s !illin of Ben 'as not completel# Austified unde" the ci"cumstances.
$itigating Circumstances Present
In an# event, all is not lost fo" appellant. )hile she did not "aise an# othe" modif#in ci"cumstances
that 'ould alte" he" penalt#, 'e deem it p"ope" to evaluate and app"eciate in he" favo" ci"cumstances
that mitiate he" c"iminal liabilit#. It is a ho"nboo! doct"ine that an appeal in a c"iminal case opens it
'holl# fo" "evie' on an# issue, includin that 'hich has not been "aised b# the pa"ties.
9.
5"om seve"al ps#choloical tests she had administe"ed to Ma"ivic, D"a. Da#an, in he" Ps#choloical
Evaluation 2epo"t dated Novembe" 6., 6000, opined as follo's;
&-his is a classic case of a Batte"ed )oman S#nd"ome. -he "epeated batte"in Ma"ivic
e,pe"ienced 'ith he" husband constitutes a fo"m of BcumulativeC p"ovocation 'hich b"o!e
do'n he" ps#choloical "esistance and natu"al self%cont"ol. It is ve"# clea" that she
developed heihtened sensitivit# to siht of impendin dane" he" husband posed
continuousl#. Ma"ivic t"ul# e,pe"ienced at the hands of he" abuse" husband a state of
ps#choloical pa"al#sis 'hich can onl# be ended b# an act of violence on he" pa"t.&
?0
D". PaAa"illo co""obo"ates the findins of D"a. Da#an. <e e,plained that the effect of &"epetitious pain
ta!in, "epetitious batte"in, BandC "epetitious malt"eatment& as 'ell as the seve"it# and the p"oloned
administ"ation of the batte"in is postt"aumatic st"ess diso"de".
?/
E,poundin the"eon, he said;
&L )hat causes the t"auma, M". )itnessG
A )hat causes the t"auma is p"obabl# the "epetitious batte"in. Second, the seve"it# of the
batte"in. -hi"d, the p"oloned administ"ation of batte"in o" the p"oloned commission of the
batte"in and the ps#choloical and constitutional stamina of the victim and anothe" one is
the public and social suppo"t available to the victim. If nobod# is inte"cedin, the mo"e she
'ill o to that diso"de"....
, , , , , , , , ,
L =ou "efe""ed a 'hile ao to seve"it#. )hat a"e the $ualifications in te"ms of seve"it# of the
post"aumatic st"ess diso"de", D". PaAa"illoG
A -he seve"it# is the most seve"e continuousl# to t"iBCe" this postBtC"aumatic st"ess diso"de"
is inAu"# to the head, banin of the head li!e that. It is usuall# the ve"# ve"# seve"e stimulus
that p"ecipitate this postBtC"aumatic st"ess diso"de". Othe"s a"e suffocatin the victim li!e
holdin a pillo' on the face, st"anulatin the individual, suffocatin the individual, and
bo,in the individual. In this situation the"efo"e, the victim is heihtened to painful stimulus,
li!e fo" e,ample she is p"enant, she is ve"# susceptible because the 'oman 'ill not onl#
p"otect he"self, she is also to p"otect the fetus. So the an,iet# is heihtened to the end BsicC
de"ee.
L But in te"ms of the "avit# of the diso"de", M". )itness, ho' do #ou classif#G
A )e classif# the diso"de" as BacuteC, o" ch"onic o" dela#ed o" BaCt#pical.
L Can #ou please desc"ibe this p"eB%Cclassification #ou called dela#ed o" Bat#picalCG
A -he acute is the one that usuall# "e$ui"e onl# one batte"in and the individual 'ill manifest
no' a seve"e emotional instabilit#, hihe" i""itabilit# "emo"se, "estlessness, and fea" and
p"obabl# in most BacuteC cases the fi"st thin 'ill be happened to the individual 'ill be
thin!in of suicide.
L And in ch"onic cases, M". )itnessG
A -he ch"onic cases is this "epetitious batte"in, "epetitious malt"eatment, an# p"oloned, it is
lone" than si, (9* months. -he BacuteC is onl# the fi"st da# to si, (9* months. Afte" this si, (9*
months #ou become ch"onic. It is stated in the boo! specificall# that afte" si, (9* months is
ch"onic. -he BaCt#pical one is the "epetitious batte"in but the individual 'ho is abno"mal and
then become no"mal. -his is ho' #ou et neu"osis f"om neu"otic pe"sonalit# of these cases
of postBtC"aumatic st"ess diso"de".&
?6
Ans'e"in the $uestions p"opounded b# the t"ial Aude, the e,pe"t 'itness cla"ified fu"the";
&L But Aust the sameB,C neu"osis especiall# on batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome , , , affects , , ,
his o" he" mental capacit#G
A =es, #ou" <ono".
L As #ou 'e"e sa#inB,C it , , , obfuscated he" "ationalit#G
A Of cou"se obfuscated.&
?1
In sum, the c#clical natu"e and the seve"it# of the violence inflicted upon appellant "esulted in
&cumulative p"ovocation 'hich b"o!e do'n he" ps#choloical "esistance and natu"al self%cont"ol,&
&ps#choloical pa"al#sis,& and &difficult# in concent"atin o" impai"ment of memo"#.&
Based on the e#planations of the e#pert witnesses, such manifestations were analogous to an
illness that diminished the e#ercise by appellant of her will power without, however, depriving her of
consciousness of her acts.-he"e 'as, thus, a "esultin diminution of he" f"eedom of action,
intellience o" intent. Pu"suant to pa"a"aphs .
?>
and /0
?7
of A"ticle /1 of the 2evised Penal Code,
this ci"cumstance should be ta!en in he" favo" and conside"ed as a mitiatin facto".
?9
In addition, 'e also find in favo" of appellant the e,tenuatin ci"cumstance of havin acted upon an
impulse so po'e"ful as to have natu"all# p"oduced passion and obfuscation. It has been held that
this state of mind is p"esent 'hen a c"ime is committed as a "esult of an uncont"ollable bu"st of
passion p"ovo!ed b# p"io" unAust o" imp"ope" acts o" b# a leitimate stimulus so po'e"ful as to
ove"come "eason.
??
-o app"eciate this ci"cumstance, the follo'in "e$uisites should concu"; (/* the"e
is an act, both unla'ful and sufficient to p"oduce such a condition of mindJ and (6* this act is not fa"
"emoved f"om the commission of the c"ime b# a conside"able lenth of time, du"in 'hich the
accused miht "ecove" he" no"mal e$uanimit#.
?8
<e"e, an acute batte"in incident, 'he"ein Ben :enosa 'as the unla'ful a"esso", p"eceded his
bein !illed b# Ma"ivic. <e had fu"the" th"eatened to !ill he" 'hile d"ain he" b# the nec! to'a"ds a
cabinet in 'hich he had !ept a un. It should also be "ecalled that she 'as eiht months p"enant at
the time. -he attempt on he" life 'as li!e'ise on that of he" fetus.
?.
<is abusive and violent acts, an
a"ession 'hich 'as di"ected at the lives of both Ma"ivic and he" unbo"n child, natu"all# p"oduced
passion and obfuscation ove"comin he" "eason. Even thouh she 'as able to "et"eat to a sepa"ate
"oom, he" emotional and mental state continued. Acco"din to he", she felt he" blood p"essu"e "iseJ
she 'as filled 'ith feelins of self%pit# and of fea" that she and he" bab# 'e"e about to die. In a fit of
indination, she p"ied open the cabinet d"a'e" 'he"e Ben !ept a un, then she too! the 'eapon and
used it to shoot him.
-he confluence of these events b"ins us to the conclusion that the"e 'as no conside"able pe"iod of
time 'ithin 'hich Ma"ivic could have "ecove"ed he" no"mal e$uanimit#. <elpful is D". PaAa"illo3s
testimon#
80
that 'ith &neu"otic an,iet#& %% a ps#choloical effect on a victim of &ove"'helmin b"utalit#
Bo"C t"auma& %% the victim "elives the beatin o" t"auma as if it 'e"e "eal, althouh she is not actuall#
bein beaten at the time. She cannot cont"ol &"e%e,pe"iencin the 'hole thin, the most vicious and
the t"auma that she suffe"ed.& She thin!s &of nothin but the suffe"in.& Such "elivin 'hich is be#ond
the cont"ol of a pe"son unde" simila" ci"cumstances, must have been 'hat Ma"ivic e,pe"ienced
du"in the b"ief time inte"val and p"evented he" f"om "ecove"in he" no"mal e$uanimit#. Acco"dinl#,
she should fu"the" be c"edited 'ith the mitiatin ci"cumstance of passion and obfuscation.
It should be cla"ified that these t'o ci"cumstances %% ps#choloical pa"al#sis as 'ell as passion and
obfuscation %% did not a"ise f"om the same set of facts.
On the one hand, the fi"st ci"cumstance a"ose f"om the c#clical natu"e and the seve"it# of the batte"#
inflicted b# the batte"e"%spouse upon appellant. -hat is, the "epeated beatins ove" a pe"iod of time
"esulted in he" ps#choloical pa"al#sis, 'hich 'as analoous to an illness diminishin the e,e"cise of
he" 'ill po'e" 'ithout dep"ivin he" of consciousness of he" acts.
-he second ci"cumstance, on the othe" hand, "esulted f"om the violent a"ession he had inflicted
on he" p"io" to the !illin. -hat the incident occu""ed 'hen she 'as eiht months p"enant 'ith thei"
child 'as deemed b# he" as an attempt not onl# on he" life, but li!e'ise on that of thei" unbo"n child.
Such pe"ception natu"all# p"oduced passion and obfuscation on he" pa"t.
S')on- L'1a, !((u'%
Treachery
-he"e is t"eache"# 'hen one commits an# of the c"imes aainst pe"sons b# emplo#in means,
methods o" fo"ms in the e,ecution the"eof 'ithout "is! to oneself a"isin f"om the defense that the
offended pa"t# miht ma!e.
8/
In o"de" to $ualif# an act as t"eache"ous, the ci"cumstances invo!ed
must be p"oven as indubitabl# as the !illin itselfJ the# cannot be deduced f"om me"e infe"ences, o"
conAectu"es, 'hich have no place in the app"eciation of evidence.
86
Because of the "avit# of the
"esultin offense, t"eache"# must be p"oved as conclusivel# as the !illin itself.
81
2ulin that t"eache"# 'as p"esent in the instant case, the t"ial cou"t imposed the penalt# of death
upon appellant. It infe""ed this $ualif#in ci"cumstances me"el# f"om the fact that the lifeless bod# of
Ben had been found l#in in bed 'ith an &open, dep"essed, ci"cula"& f"actu"e located at the bac! of
his head. As to e,actl# ho' and 'hen he had been fatall# attac!ed, ho'eve", the p"osecution failed
to establish indubitabl#. Onl# the follo'in testimon# of appellant leads us to the events su""oundin
his death;
&L =ou said that 'hen Ben came bac! to #ou" house, he d"aed #ouG <o' did he d"a
#ouG
CO+2-;
-he 'itness demonst"ated to the Cou"t b# usin he" "iht hand fle,ed fo"cibl# in he"
f"ont nec!*
A And he d"aed me to'a"ds the doo" bac!'a"d.
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L )he"e did he b"in #ouG
A Outside the bed"oom and he 'anted to et somethin and then he !ept on shoutin at me
that 3#ou miht as 'ell be !illed so the"e 'ill be nobod# to na me3
L So #ou said that he d"aed #ou to'a"ds the d"a'e"G
A =es, si".
L )hat is the"e in the d"a'e"G
A I 'as a'a"e that it 'as a un.
CO+2- IN-E2P2E-E2
(At this Aunctu"e the 'itness sta"ted c"#in*
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L )e"e #ou actuall# b"ouht to the d"a'e"G
A =es, si".
L )hat happened 'hen #ou 'e"e b"ouht to that d"a'e"G
A <e d"aed me to'a"ds the d"a'e" and he 'as about to open the d"a'e" but he could not
open it because he did not have the !e# then he pulled his 'allet 'hich contained a blade
about 1 inches lon and I 'as a'a"e that he 'as oin to !ill me and I smashed his a"m and
then the 'allet and the blade fell. -he one he used to open the d"a'e" I sa', it 'as a pipe
about that lon, and 'hen he 'as about to pic!%up the 'allet and the blade, I smashed him
then I "an to the othe" "oom, and on that ve"# moment eve"#thin on m# mind 'as to pit# on
m#self, then the feelin I had on that ve"# moment 'as the same 'hen I 'as admitted in
P<I4P<OS Clinic, I 'as about to vomit.
CO+2- IN-E2P2E-E2
(-he 'itness at this Aunctu"e is c"#in intensel#*.
, , , , , , , , ,
L =ou said that he d"opped the blade, fo" the "eco"d 'ill #ou please desc"ibe this blade
about 1 inches lon, ho' does it loo! li!eG
A -h"ee (1* inches lon and Q inch 'ide.
L It is a fle,ible bladeG
A It3s a cutte".
L <o' do #ou desc"ibe the blade, is it sha"p both edesG
A =es, because he once used it to me.
L <o' did he do itG
A <e 'anted to cut m# th"oat.
L )ith the same bladeG
A =es, si", that 'as the obAect used 'hen he intimidate me.
, , , , , , , , ,
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L =ou said that this blade fell f"om his "ip, is it co""ectG
A =es, because I smashed him.
L )hat happenedG
A Ben t"ied to pic!%up the 'allet and the blade, I pic!%up the pipe and I smashed him and I
"an to the othe" "oom.
L )hat else happenedG
A )hen I 'as in the othe" "oom, I felt the same thin li!e 'hat happened befo"e 'hen I 'as
admitted in P<I4P<OS Clinic, I 'as about to vomit. I !no' m# blood p"essu"e 'as "aised. I
'as f"ihtened I 'as about to die because of m# blood p"essu"e.
CO+2- IN-E2P2E-E2;
(+pon the ans'e" of the 'itness ettin the pipe and smashed him, the 'itness at
the same time pointed at the bac! of he" nec! o" the nape*.
A--=. -AB+CANON;
L =ou said #ou 'ent to the "oom, 'hat else happenedG
A Conside"in all the ph#sical suffe"ins that I3ve been th"ouh 'ith him, I too! pit# on m#self
and I felt I 'as about to die also because of m# blood p"essu"e and the bab#, so I ot that
un and I shot him.
CO+2-
Eto Att#. -abucanon
L =ou shot himG
A =es, I disto"ted the d"a'e".&
8>
-he above testimon# is insufficient to establish the p"esence of t"eache"#. -he"e is no sho'in of the
victim3s position "elative to appellant3s at the time of the shootin. Besides, e$uall# a,iomatic is the
"ule that 'hen a !illin is p"eceded b# an a"ument o" a $ua""el, t"eache"# cannot be app"eciated as
a $ualif#in ci"cumstance, because the deceased ma# be said to have been fo"e'a"ned and to have
anticipated a"ession f"om the assailant.
87
Mo"eove", in o"de" to app"eciate alevosia, the method of assault adopted b# the a"esso" must
have been consciousl# and delibe"atel# chosen fo" the specific pu"pose of accomplishin the
unla'ful act 'ithout "is! f"om an# defense that miht be put up b# the pa"t# attac!ed.
89
-he"e is no
sho'in, thouh, that the p"esent appellant intentionall# chose a specific means of successfull#
attac!in he" husband 'ithout an# "is! to he"self f"om an# "etaliato"# act that he miht ma!e. -o the
cont"a"#, it appea"s that the thouht of usin the un occu""ed to he" onl# at about the same moment
'hen she decided to !ill he" batte"e"%spouse. In the absence of an# convincin p"oof that she
consciousl# and delibe"atel# emplo#ed the method b# 'hich she committed the c"ime in o"de" to
ensu"e its e,ecution, this Cou"t "esolves the doubt in he" favo".
8?
Proper Penalty
-he penalt# fo" pa""icide imposed b# A"ticle 6>9 of the 2evised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to
death. Since t'o mitiatin ci"cumstances and no a"avatin ci"cumstance have been found to
have attended the commission of the offense, the penalt# shall be lo'e"ed b# one (/* de"ee,
pu"suant to A"ticle 9> of pa"a"aph 7
88
of the same Code.
8.
-he penalt# of reclusion temporal in its
medium pe"iod is imposable, conside"in that t'o mitiatin ci"cumstances a"e to be ta!en into
account in "educin the penalt# b# one de"ee, and no othe" modif#in ci"cumstances 'e"e sho'n
to have attended the commission of the offense.
.0
+nde" the Indete"minate Sentence 4a', the
minimum of the penalt# shall be 'ithin the "ane of that 'hich is ne,t lo'e" in de"ee %% prision
mayor %% and the ma,imum shall be 'ithin the "ane of the medium pe"iod of reclusion temporal.
Conside"in all the ci"cumstances of the instant case, 'e deem it Aust and p"ope" to impose the
penalt# of prision mayor in its minimum pe"iod, o" si, (9* #ea"s and one (/* da# in p"ison as
minimumJ to reclusion temporal in its medium pe"iod, o" /> #ea"s 8 months and / da# as ma,imum.
Notin that appellant has al"ead# se"ved the minimum pe"iod, she ma# no' appl# fo" and be
"eleased f"om detention on pa"ole.
./
#pilogue
Bein a novel concept in ou" Au"isp"udence, the batte"ed 'oman s#nd"ome 'as neithe" eas# no"
simple to anal#@e and "econi@e vis%R%vis the iven set of facts in the p"esent case. -he Cou"t
aoni@ed on ho' to appl# the theo"# as a mode"n%da# "ealit#. It too! "eat effo"t be#ond the no"mal
manne" in 'hich decisions a"e made %% on the basis of e,istin la' and Au"isp"udence applicable to
the p"oven facts. -o ive a Aust and p"ope" "esolution of the case, it endeavo"ed to ta!e a ood loo!
at studies conducted he"e and ab"oad in o"de" to unde"stand the int"icacies of the s#nd"ome and the
distinct pe"sonalit# of the ch"onicall# abused pe"son. Ce"tainl#, the Cou"t has lea"ned much. And
definitel#, the solicito" ene"al and appellant3s counsel, Att#. Pat"ina 4ea"da, have helped it in such
lea"nin p"ocess.
)hile ou" hea"ts empathi@e 'ith "ecu""entl# batte"ed pe"sons, 'e can onl# 'o"! 'ithin the limits of
la', Au"isp"udence and iven facts. )e cannot ma!e o" invent them. Neithe" can 'e amend the
2evised Penal Code. Onl# Con"ess, in its 'isdom, ma# do so.
-he Cou"t, ho'eve", is not discountin the possibilit# of self%defense a"isin f"om the batte"ed
'oman s#nd"ome. )e no' sum up ou" main points. First, each of the phases of the c#cle of
violence must be p"oven to have cha"acte"i@ed at least t'o batte"in episodes bet'een the appellant
and he" intimate pa"tne". Second, the final acute batte"in episode p"ecedin the !illin of the
batte"e" must have p"oduced in the batte"ed pe"son3s mind an actual fea" of an imminent ha"m f"om
he" batte"e" and an honest belief that she needed to use fo"ce in o"de" to save he" life. hird, at the
time of the !illin, the batte"e" must have posed p"obable %% not necessa"il# immediate and actual %%
"ave ha"m to the accused, based on the histo"# of violence pe"pet"ated b# the fo"me" aainst the
latte". -a!en altoethe", these ci"cumstances could satisf# the "e$uisites of self%defense. +nde" the
e,istin facts of the p"esent case, ho'eve", not all of these elements 'e"e dul# established.
7EREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Ma"ivic :enosa fo" pa""icide is he"eb# AFF()M*+.
<o'eve", the"e bein t'o (6* mitiatin ci"cumstances and no a"avatin ci"cumstance attendin
he" commission of the offense, he" penalt# is )*+,-*+ to si, (9* #ea"s and one (/* da# of prision
mayor as minimumJ to /> #ea"s, 8 months and / da# of reclusion temporal as ma,imum.
Inasmuch as appellant has been detained fo" mo"e than the minimum penalt# he"eb# imposed upon
he", the di"ecto" of the Bu"eau of Co""ections ma# immediatel# )*.*AS* he" f"om custod# upon
due dete"mination that she is eliible fo" pa"ole, unless she is bein held fo" some othe" la'ful
cause. Costs de oficio.
SO OR8ERE8.
Puno, -arpio, -orona, -arpio%Morales, -alle/o, Sr., A0cuna and inga, ''., concu".
+avide, 'r., -.'., Sandoval%1utierre0, and Austria%Martine0, ''., Aoin Fustice Santiao in he" dissent.
2itug and 3uisumbing ''., in the "esult.
4nares%Santiago '., see dissentin opinion.
epublic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIHISION
G.R. No. 123139 O)*o5'r 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NES, plaintiff%appellee,
vs.
PO2 "L$ERT "$R!OL, M"C"R!O "STELLERO, an- J"NU"R!O 8OS8OS, accused%appellants.
:U!SUM$!NG, J.%
On appeal is the decision dated Ma# /?, /..7, of the 2eional -"ial Cou"t of Cebu Cit#, B"anch /0,
in C"iminal Cases Nos. CB+%10170 fo" mu"de" and CB+%1199> fo" illeal possession of fi"ea"ms,
findin appellants Albe"t Ab"iol, Maca"io Astelle"o, and Fanua"io Dosdos uilt# be#ond "easonable
doubt of mu"de" and violation of P"esidential Dec"ee No. /899 on Illeal Possession of 5i"ea"ms. Its
dec"etal po"tion "eads;
)<E2E5O2E, Audment is he"eb# "ende"ed;
In C"iminal Case No. CB+%10170 fo" Mu"de", the Cou"t finds accused Albe"t Ab"iol, Maca"io
Astelle"o and Fanua"io Dosdos, :+I4-= of mu"de" be#ond "easonable doubt and each is
he"eb# sentenced to reclusion perpetua, 'ith the accesso"# penalties p"ovided b# la'J to
indemnif# the hei"s of deceased AleAand"o 5lo"es the sum of P70,000.00J actual damaes of
P10,000.00, "ep"esentin a "easonable amount fo" the embalmin, viil, 'a!e, and bu"ial
e,pensesJ P10,000.00 fo" atto"ne#3s feesJ and to pa# the costs.
5o" insufficienc# of evidence, accused :audioso Navales is he"eb# ACL+I--ED 'ith costs
de officio.
In C"iminal Case No. CB+%1199> fo" Illeal Possession of 5i"ea"ms, accused Albe"t Ab"iol,
Maca"io Astelle"o and Fanua"io Dosdos, a"e he"eb# sentenced to suffe" an indete"minate
penalt# of /> #ea"s, 8 months and / da# to /? #ea"s and > months and to pa# the costs.
-he .18 calibe" "evolve", SN P08>>7 and the t'o .>7 calibe" pistols 'ith SN P:O /1709 and
SN 76>9., a"e he"eb# confiscated and fo"feited in favo" of the :ove"nment and acco"dinl#,
the Cle"! of Cou"t of this B"anch is di"ected to tu"n ove" the said fi"ea"ms to the Chief of
Police, Cebu Cit#, o" to the 5i"ea"ms and E,plosives Office (5EO* of the PNP 2eion ?, upon
p"ope" "eceipt.
-he Cebu Cit# Chief of Police is di"ected to "elease immediatel# upon "eceipt he"eof, the
pe"son of :audioso Navales, unless the"e be an# othe" valid "eason fo" his continued
detention.
SO O2DE2ED.
/
-his Audment 'as the culmination of p"oceedins beinnin 'ith the Amended Info"mation dated
Septembe" 9, /..1, doc!eted as C"iminal Case No. CB+%10170, 'he"ein appellants PO6 Albe"t
Ab"iol of the Philippine National Police (PNP*, Maca"io Astelle"o, Fanua"io Dosdos, and PNP PEChief
Inspecto" :audioso Navales 'e"e cha"ed 'ith mu"de" alleedl# committed as follo's;
-hat on o" about the 7th da# of Fune, /..1, at about //;70 P.M., in the Cit# of Cebu,
Philippines and 'ithin the Au"isdiction of this <ono"able Cou"t, the said accused, a"med 'ith
handuns, connivin and confede"atin toethe" and mutuall# helpin one anothe", 'ith
t"eache"# and evident p"emeditation, 'ith delibe"ate intent, 'ith intent to !ill, did then and
the"e shot one AleAand"o 5lo"es alias Ale, 'ith the said handuns, hittin him on the diffe"ent
pa"ts of his bod#, the"eb# inflictin upon him the follo'in ph#sical inAu"ies;
CA2DIO 2ESPI2A-O2= A22ES- D+E -O S<OCP AND <EMO22<A:E
SECONDA2= -O M+4-IP4E :+NS<O- )O+NDS -O -<E -2+NP AND -<E
<EAD
as a conse$uence of 'hich the said AleAand"o 5lo"es alias Ale, died late".
CON-2A2= -O 4A).
6
At the time of the incident, appellant Ab"iol, a policeman p"eviousl# detailed as a Aailua"d at the
Baon Buha# 2ehabilitation Cente" (BB2C* in Cebu Cit#, 'as himself a detention p"isone" in
BB2C. <e 'as cha"ed 'ith mu"de", a non%bailable offense, in C"iminal Case No. CB+%688>1
befo"e the 2-C of Cebu Cit#, B"anch />.
1
Appellant Astelle"o 'as a fo"me" p"isone" at BB2C, 'ho had se"ved time fo" "ave th"eats.
>
-he
'a"den then, Chief Inspecto" Navales,
7
emplo#ed him as his pe"sonal d"ive" and ene"al
factotum.
9
Navales 'as found uilt# of "ave misconduct in Administ"ative Case No. 0/%.1 fo"
allo'in Ab"iol and Dosdos out of BB2C on the da# of the mu"de" and 'as summa"il# dismissed
f"om the police fo"ce.
Dosdos had been convicted b# the 2-C of Cebu Cit#, B"anch /0, of hih'a# "obbe"# in C"iminal
Case No. CB+%/8/76 but Navales failed to act on the mittimus o"de"in Dosdos3 t"ansfe" to the
national penitentia"#, and he "emained in BB2C.
?
Ab"iol and Dosdos enAo#ed special p"ivilees at
BB2C as the 'a"den3s e""and bo#s
8
o" &t"ustees.&
-he victim, AleAand"o 5lo"es alias &Ale,,& 'as a fo"me" policeman. <e 'as dismissed f"om the PNP
in Auust /..6 afte" testin positive fo" p"ohibited d"us.
.
Ab"iol, Astelle"o, and Dosdos 'e"e also indicted fo" illeal possession of fi"ea"ms in C"iminal Case
No. CB+%1199>. -he cha"e sheet "eads;
-hat on o" about the 7th da# of Fune /..1 at about //;>8 P.M. in the Cit# of Cebu,
Philippines, and 'ithin the Au"isdiction of this <ono"able Cou"t, the said accused, connivin
and confede"atin toethe" and mutuall# helpin one anothe", 'ith delibe"ate intent, did then
and the"e !eep unde" thei" cont"ol and possession the follo'in;
/. one (/* .18 cal. "evolve" (A"msco"* 'ith SN P08>>7 'ith si, empt# shellsJ
6. one (/* .>7 cal. pistol (Colt* 'ith SN P90/1709 'ith . live ammunitions (sic*J
1. one (/* .>7 cal. Pistol (Colt* 'ith SN 76>9. 'ith five live ammunition.
'ithout fi"st obtainin a pe"mit o" license the"efo" f"om competent autho"it#.
CON-2A2= -O 4A).
/0
)hen a""ained, all the accused pleaded not uilt# to both cha"es. Since the indictments a"ose
f"om the same incident, the cases 'e"e Aointl# t"ied.
-he facts of the case a"e as follo's;
At a"ound //;70 P.M., Fune 7, /..1, 2omeo Sta. C"u@, F"., a "adio ne's "epo"te" then aboa"d his
Aeep, had Aust "eached the ABS%CBN compound in P. del 2osa"io St"eet, Cebu Cit#, 'hen he hea"d a
couple of unshots. <e loo!ed a"ound and sa' a man "unnin unsteadil# to'a"ds the inte"section of
P. del 2osa"io St"eet and Fones Avenue (OsmeIa Bouleva"d*. -he man 'as shoutin &abang,
tabangS& (&<elpS <elpS&*. Sta. C"u@, F"., sa' a "ed &Fiff#& ma!e a +%tu"n nea" the ate of the cit#
cent"al school that nea"l# "an ove" the man shoutin fo" help. -he man tu"ned bac! and stae"ed
to'a"ds the di"ection of Bacalso Avenue and +"ello P"ivate 2oad, but afte" a fe' mete"s on 'obbl#
les, he stopped and collapsed.
Mean'hile, the &Fiff#& follo'ed. It stopped beside the fallen fiu"e and a tall, thin man alihted. -he
man fi"ed seve"al shots at the p"ost"ate fiu"e. <e boa"ded the &Fiff#& 'hich sped a'a# to'a"ds 4eon
Pilat St"eet. 2omeo Sta. C"u@, F"., moved his Aeep and focused its headlihts on the victim.
In the meantime, PO1 Ale,ande" 2ustela 'as at a vulcani@in shop nea" the inte"section of Bacalso
Avenue and 4eon Pilat St"eet, 'hen he hea"d unshots comin f"om the no"th. <e "an to'a"ds
'he"e the unshots came and sa' people scampe"in. All of a sudden, the &Fiff#& 'ith th"ee pe"sons
on boa"d sped past him and made an ab"upt left tu"n at 4eon Pilat St"eet. 2ustela immediatel#
"adioed fo" assistance. Minutes late", pat"ol ca" No. 60/ 'ith PO6 <e"be"t 2amos on boa"d a""ived.
2ustela boa"ded the ca" and the# follo'ed the &Fiff#,& 'hile b"oadcastin an ala"m to police
head$ua"te"s and othe" mobile pat"ol ca"s.
On nea"b# Colon St"eet, SPO/ Elea@a" Ab"iana and PO6 2omeo Abellana 'e"e c"uisin aboa"d
pat"ol ca" No. 608, 'hen the# hea"d a "adio messae that the suspects in the shootin incident 'e"e
aboa"d a &Fiff#.& As the# tu"ned left at 4eon Pilat St"eet, the# sa' the &Fiff#& headin to'a"ds Ca"bon
Ma"!et. -he# pu"sued the &Fiff#& 'hich stopped in f"ont of the Don Bosco Buildin nea" BB2C, 'hen
police ca" No. 607, 'ith PO Euenio Bad"inas and PO6 :e"ald Cue aboa"d, bloc!ed the &Fiff#3s&
path. Cue fi"ed a 'a"nin shot and th"ee pe"sons alihted. -he d"ive" 'as appellant Astelle"o, 'hom
Cue had "econi@ed and seen befo"e at the BB2C. Ab"iana and Cue app"oached the t"io 'ho
stood a mete" a'a# f"om the &Fiff#.& SPO/ Ab"iana f"is!ed Ab"iol and sei@ed f"om his 'aist a .18
calibe" "evolve" 'ith se"ial numbe" PO8>87 'ith si, (9* empt# shells in its c#linde".
//
+nde" Ab"iol3s
seat, the police also found a .>7 calibe" pistol bea"in se"ial numbe" P:O /1709 'ith nine (.* live
"ounds in its maa@ine and anothe" .>7 calibe" pistol 'ith se"ial numbe" 76>9. loaded 'ith five (7*
unfi"ed bullets.
/6
)hile the pat"ol ca"s 'e"e chasin the &Fiff#,& anothe" police team p"oceeded to the c"ime scene in
"esponse to the ala"m. -his team f"om Police Station No. 1 in San Nicolas, Cebu Cit# "ushed the
victim to the Cebu Cit# Medical Cente", 'he"e he 'as p"onounced dead on a""ival. Mean'hile, PO1
Celso Seville, F"., a homicide investiato" of Police Station No. 1 found fou" (>* .>7 calibe" shells
some fou" (>* feet a'a# f"om the victim3s bod#, and t'o (6* defo"med slus 'he"e the victim had
lain, and submitted them to the 2eion ? PNP C"ime 4abo"ato"# fo" ballistics testin.
/1
D". 4adislao Diola, F"., Chief of the PNP 2eion ? C"ime 4abo"ato"# autopsied the victim3s bod#. <e
found that the cause of the victim3s death 'as &ca"dio"espi"ato"# a""est due to shoc! and
hemo""hae seconda"# to multiple unshot 'ounds to the t"un! and head.33
/>
D". Diola "ecove"ed a .
18 calibe" slu f"om the co"pse, 'hich he late" submitted fo" ballistics e,amination.
SPO> 4emuel Case", ballistician of the PNP C"ime 4abo"ato"#, "epo"ted the follo'in;
/. 5i"ed ca"t"ide cases ma"!ed &FA%/& to &FA%1& possesses simila" individual cha"acte"istics
ma"!ins 'ith the test ca"t"ide cases fi"ed f"om cal .>7 'ith SN; P:O/1709J
6. 5i"ed ca"t"ide cases ma"!ed &FA%>& and &E%9.%9& possesses simila" individual
cha"acte"istics ma"!ins 'ith the test ca"t"ide cases fi"ed f"om cal .>7 pistol 'ith SN; 76>9.J
1. 5i"ed bullet metal Aac!et ma"!ed &FA%7& possesses simila" individual cha"acte"istics
ma"!ins 'ith test bullets fi"ed f"om cal .>7 pistol 'ith SN; P:O/1709J
>. 5i"ed ca"t"ide cases ma"!ed &E%>7%/ & to &E%>7%9& possesses simila" individual
cha"acte"istics ma"!ins 'ith the test ca"t"ide cases fi"ed f"om cal .18 2ev. SN; P8>>7J
7. 5i"ed bullets ma"!ed as &FA%9& and &4D& possesses simila" individual cha"acte"istic
ma"!ins 'ith the test bullets fi"ed f"om cal .18 2ev. SN; P8>>7.
/7
-he follo'in da#, appellants unde"'ent a pa"affin test. -he hands of appellants 'e"e found positive
fo" unpo'de" "esidues. A chemist"# test on the fi"ea"ms sho'ed that the th"ee handuns 'e"e also
positive. Inspecto" M#"na A"eola, Chief of the Chemist"# Section of the PNP 2eion ? C"ime
4abo"ato"#, stated in he" testimon# that the fi"ea"ms had been fi"ed,
/9
and that appellants had fi"ed
the uns 'ithin a pe"iod of sevent#%t'o (?6* hou"s p"io" to the e,amination.
-he 'ido' and "elatives of the victim testified on the possible motive behind the !illin. -he# claimed
the victim, a confessed d"u use", ma# have been &"ubbed out& on the o"de"s of Navales fo" failu"e to
"emit P1/,000 as p"oceeds f"om pushin p"ohibited d"us. Afte" failin to delive" the d"u mone# to
Navales, fo" 'hom he 'as "epeatedl# pushin d"us, the victim 'ent into hidin, but late" "etu"ned to
Cebu Cit# because he missed his famil#.
/?
Appellants den# the accusations. Ab"iol ave""ed that he and Dosdos 'e"e amon the seve"al
&t"ustees& at BB2C assined to 'o"! in the !itchen. Appellant Astelle"o, 'ho 'as the 'a"den3s d"ive",
'as also in cha"e of ma"!etin fo" the p"isone"s3 food. On the da# of the incident, Astelle"o "eali@ed
that the"e 'as no mone# fo" the ne,t da#3s ma"!etin so he as!ed Ab"iol to accompan# him to the
house of Navales, but since he 'as not in, the# "etu"ned to BB2C and sa' Navales an hou" late".
Afte" the# "eceived the mone# f"om Navales3 niece on thei" 'a# bac! to BB2C, Dosdos hea"d
unshots. Ab"iol o"de"ed Astelle"o, 'ho 'as d"ivin, to tu"n bac!. -hen Ab"iol claimed he sa' a tall,
slim man aliht f"om a &Fiff#& and shoot at a p"one fiu"e on the "ound. Seconds late", the unman
"etu"ned to the &Fiff#,& 'hich sped off. Ab"iol said he o"de"ed Astelle"o to chase that &Fiff#& but it had
too much of a headsta"t and the# lost siht of it. Ab"iol o"de"ed Astelle"o to p"oceed to BB2C. At
Colon St"eet, the# hea"d unshots behind them and the bla"in si"en of a police ca". -he# e,plained
that since the# 'e"e detention p"isone"s, the# had to evade meetin the police. -he# hea"d mo"e
un shots. +pon "eachin BB2C, the ates 'e"e closed, so the# d"ove to the old ai"po"t. On thei"
'a# bac! to BB2C seve"al police ca"s bloc!ed them and a""ested them. SPO> Elea@a" Ab"iana
f"is!ed him and too! the .18 se"vice "evolve" f"om his 'aist.
/8
Ab"iol also testified that he su""ende"ed his se"vice fi"ea"m to the BB2C Administ"ative Office" 'hen
he 'as se"ved a 'a""ant of a""est fo" mu"de" in C"iminal Case No. CB+%688>1. <o'eve", the
handun 'as defective and it 'as "etu"ned to him fo" "epai" b# A"msco", and upon "epai" he handed
it ove" to the BB2C a"mo"#. -he a"mo"e" "etu"ned it to him since the"e 'as no place to !eep it. <e
said that althouh he 'as a detention p"isone", he had #et to be discha"ed f"om the se"vice. <e
'as assined ua"d and esco"t duties b# the 'a"den.
/.
Ab"iol said that on the da# of the incident he
'as, as a BB2C Aailua"d, autho"i@ed to ca""# his se"vice fi"ea"m.
60
<e p"esented a Memo"andum
2eceipt
6/
autho"i@in him to ca""# the ove"nment%issued .18 "evolve".
66
On the 'itness stand, Astelle"o and Dosdos na""ated a simila" ve"sion of the incident as did Ab"iol.
Both vehementl# denied havin an# !no'lede of the t'o .>7 calibe" pistols found b# PO1 Cue in
the &Fiff#.&
61
-he defense also p"esented D". Fesus P. Ce"na, medico%leal office" of the Cebu Cit# PNP
Command, to testif# on the calibe" of the fi"ea"ms 'hich miht have caused the unshot 'ounds of
the victim. 2el#in on the Nec"ops# 2epo"t p"epa"ed b# D". Diola, D". Ce"na decla"ed that 'ound
nos. / and 6, 'hich each measu"ed 0.9 cm. b# 0.9 cm., ma# have been caused b# a .18 calibe"
fi"ea"m. As to 'ound nos. 1 and >, 'hich each measu"ed 0.7 cm. b# 0.7 cm., it 'as possible that a .
18 handun 'as used, o" one 'ith a smalle" bo"e. D". Ce"na opined that a .>7 pistol could not have
inflicted all the fo"eoin 'ounds, as the ent"# points 'e"e too small fo" a .>7 calibe" bullet. )ith
"espect to the "a@in 'ounds found on the victim3s bod#, D". Ce"na testified that it 'as impossible to
dete"mine the calibe" of the fi"ea"m used.
6>
-he t"ial cou"t found appellants3 ve"sion of the incident neithe" convincin and c"edible and, as
ea"lie" stated, it believed the p"osecution3s ve"sion. Petitione"s3 'e"e convicted of the offenses
cha"ed.
<ence, this appeal, 'ith appellants assinin the follo'in e""o"s;
I
-<E 4O)E2 CO+2- E22ED IN CONHIC-IN: -<E ACC+SED%APPE44AN-S O5 -<E C2IMES
O5 M+2DE2 AND I44E:A4 POSSESSION O5 5I2EA2MS DESPI-E -<E 54IMS= AND
+N2E4IAB4E EHIDENCE P2ESEN-ED B= -<E P2OSEC+-ION.
II
-<E 4O)E2 CO+2- E22ED IN 5INDIN: -<E :+I4- O5 -<E ACC+SED%APPE44AN-S O5 -<E
C2IME O5 M+2DE2 AND I44E:A4 POSSESSION O5 5I2EA2MS BE=OND 2EASONAB4E
DO+B-.
At issue is 'hethe" the p"osecution3s evidence, 'hich is mainl# ci"cumstantial, suffices to convict
appellants fo" mu"de" and violation of P"esidential Dec"ee No. /899, be#ond "easonable doubt.
A. -riminal -ase 5o. -B,%67687
On thei" conviction fo" mu"de", appellants a"ue that the p"osecution3s ci"cumstantial evidence
aainst them is 'ea!, ambiuous, and inconclusive. Specificall#, appellants contend that the# should
be ac$uitted because;
First, e#e'itness 2omeo Sta. C"u@, F"., did not pe"sonall# identif# them as the culp"its. At no point in
his testimon# did e#e'itness Sta. C"u@, F"., positivel# identif# an# of the appellants o" appellant
Ab"iol as the unman. Sta. C"u@, F". onl# ave a ene"al desc"iption of the assailants, despite
attempts to ma!e him ive a cateo"ical identification. <e admitted he found out the name of Ab"iol
f"om television and ne's "epo"ts and could not identif# Ab"iol as the one 'hom he sa' shot the
victim. -he t"ansc"ipt of his testimon# is "evealin.
L; -hen afte" the Fiff# stopped in f"ont of the fallen victim, 'hat happened ne,tG
A; I sa' that the"e 'as a man 'ho disemba"!ed f"om the Fiff#. <e 'as a tall, thin fello'
'ho disemba"!ed f"om the Fiff# and at the same time, he shot the fallen victim.
L; <o' man# times did he shoot the victimG
A; I cannot count atto"ne# but I sa' him shootin the victim.
L; In #ou" affidavit, #ou said that the pe"son 'ho disemba"!ed f"om the Fiff#, 'hose
name #ou !no' late" on as PO6 Albe"t Ab"iol, PNP, shot the victim in the diffe"ent pa"ts of his
bod#. If Albe"t Ab"iol is no' in the cou"t"oom, 'ill #ou please point to himG
A; I 'ill !no' him atto"ne# because of the -H sho's and ne'spape"s.
CO+2-; (-O )I-NESS*
L; =ou a"e "efe""in to the name of that man 'ho disemba"!ed f"om the Fiff# and fi"ed
seve"al shots at the fallen victimG
A; =es, I !no' his name =ou" <ono" on (sic* the ne's cast.
CO+2-; (-O )I-NESS*
L; Al"iht, fo"et the ne's. -he man #ou sa' 'hen he alihted f"om the Fiff# and
pou"ed (sic* seve"al bullets on the fallen man, loo! a"ound if he is in the cou"t"oomG
A; ( cannot identify 4our $onor.
CO+2-;
L; =ou cannotG
A; But 9because: what ( saw is a man who is tall and thin because it was dar".
,,, ,,, ,,,
L; <o' man# pe"sons fi"ed a shot at the fallen manG
A; I onl# sa' that man =ou" <ono" 'ho alihted f"om the Fiff#.
L; Did #ou see his ph#sical featu"esG
A; ;nly <t=his, ( can only tell his height, he was tall and his body build is thin. all and
thin. (Emphasis supplied*
67
Since the sole e#e'itness could not identif# the unman and his companions, the p"osecution "elied
on ci"cumstantial evidence f"om 'hich the t"ial cou"t could d"a' its findins and conclusion of
culpabilit#.
69
Ci"cumstantial evidence ma# be "elied upon, as in this case, 'hen to insist on di"ect
testimon# 'ould "esult in settin felons f"ee.
Second, appellants asse"t that the pa"affin tests a"e Audiciall# "econi@ed as un"eliable and
inconclusive. A pa"affin test could establish the p"esence o" absence of nit"ates on the hand.
<o'eve", it cannot establish that the sou"ce of the nit"ates 'as the discha"e of fi"ea"ms. Nit"ates
a"e also found in substances othe" than unpo'de". A pe"son 'ho tests positive ma# have handled
one o" mo"e substances 'ith the same positive "eaction fo" nit"ates such as e,plosives, fi"e'o"!s,
fe"tili@e"s, pha"maceuticals, tobacco, and leuminous plants. <ence, the p"esence of nit"ates should
onl# be ta!en as an indication of a possibilit# that a pe"son has fi"ed a un.
6?
<o'eve", it must be
bo"ne in mind that appellants 'e"e not convicted on the sole basis of the pa"affin test.
hird, appellants claim that the autops# "epo"t of p"osecution 'itness D". 4adislao Diola "evealed
se"ious ambiuities.
68
D". Fesus P. Ce"na, usin the same autops# "epo"t, said that the unshot
'ounds measu"in 0.9 , 0.9 centimete"s could not have been caused b# a .>7 calibe" pistol because
an ent"ance 'ound of that si@e 'as too small fo" a .>7 calibe" bullet.
6.
D". Ce"na claimed that a
'ound inflicted b# a .>7 pistol 'ould have an ent"# point of an#'he"e f"om /./ to /.1 centimete"s. <e
decla"ed that it 'as 'ith mo"e "eason that an ent"ance 'ound measu"in .7 , .7 centimete"s could
not be caused b# a calibe" .>7 bullet.
10
Since no fi"ea"m smalle" than a .18 calibe" pistol 'as sei@ed
f"om appellants, the# claim the obse"vation of D". Ce"na onl# sho's that the# could not have shot
the victim.
)e note, ho'eve", that du"in c"oss%e,amination, D". Diola ca"efull# e,plained that a fi"ea"m3s
calibe" is not the onl# basis fo" dete"minin the cause of the unshot 'ound. <e said;
A--=. 2EMO-IL+E;
L; So, no"mall# the si@e of .7 cm , .7 cm 'hich is the point of ent"# of unshot 'ound
No. 1 this ma# have been caused b# a fi"ea"m of lesse" calibe" than calibe" .18G
A; Not necessa"il#. -he"e is a ve"# small diffe"ence in the si@e and this does not
p"eclude that unshot 'ound No. 1 ma# have also been caused b# the same fi"ea"m 'hich
caused unshot 'ounds Nos. / and 6.here are factors which often affect the si0e of the
wounds at the time of the e#amination, perhaps a recission <sic= of the s"in in the area
where gunshot &ound 5o. 6 was inflicted so that gunshot wound becomes smaller.
L; Did #ou not sa# that no"mall# the point of ent"# of the unshot 'ounds va"# 'ith the
calibe" of the fi"ea"m 'hich caused it, so that the point of ent"# caused b# one fi"ea"m of a
pa"ticula" calibe" ma# be bie" than the point of ent"# of a unshot 'ound caused b#
anothe" fi"ea"m of lesse" calibe"G
A; ( told you of other factors that often affect the si0e of the entry of the bullet although
the caliber is one basis of the si0e of the wounds.
,,, ,,, ,,,
L; )ill #ou e,plain fu"the" on that because m# unde"standin is that .7 cm 'ound must
pe"fo"ce be caused b# a fi"ea"m of lesse" calibe" than that 'hich caused the .9 cm 'oundG
A; As I said the"e a"e "anes in the si@e of the 'ounds. -he va"iance in the si@e of the
'ound 'hen it is minimal does not e,clude the possibilit# that a 'ound 'ith a .7 cm si@e
and .9 cm si@e could have been caused b# the same calibe". (Emphasis supplied*.
1/
-he Office of the Solicito" :ene"al points out that D". Diola3s testimon# is suppo"ted b# D". Ped"o P.
Solis, a medical e,pe"t, in his boo! entitled .egal Medicine. -he facto"s 'hich could ma!e the 'ound
of ent"ance bie" than the calibe" include; (/* shootin in contact o" nea" fi"eJ (6* defo"mit# of the
bullet 'hich ente"edJ (1* a bullet 'hich miht have ente"ed the s!in side'iseJ and (>* an acute
anula" app"oach of the bullet. <o'eve", 'he"e the 'ound of ent"ance is smalle" than the fi"ea"m3s
calibe", the same ma# be att"ibuted to the f"amentation of the bullet befo"e ente"in the s!in o" to
a contraction of the elastic tissues of the s"in (st"ess supplied*.
16
D". Diola testified that a .>7 calibe"
pistol could have caused the "a@in 'ounds on the victim3s head and e,t"emities.
11
D". Ce"na
co""obo"ated D". Diola3s findins in this "ea"d.
1>
Such e,pe"t opinions disp"ove appellants3 theo"#
that the .>7 calibe" handuns confiscated f"om them could not have been used in !illin the victim.
Fourth, appellants allee that the testimon# of PEInspecto" 4emuel Case", the p"osecution3s ballistics
e,pe"t, clea"l# sho's that; (/* <e is ino"ant about such ballistics inst"uments such as the
mic"omete", oniomete", and p"essu"e ba""el.
17
(6* <e is not conve"sant 'ith &the "e$ui"ed "efe"ences
conce"nin ballistics,& pa"ticula"l# boo!s on the subAect b# fo"ein autho"ities.
19
(1* <e could not
&scientificall# dete"mine the calibe" of a bullet.&
1?
Since PEInspecto" Case" lac!ed ade$uate t"ainin
and e,pe"tise in ballistics, the# claim that his opinion that the test bullets and ca"t"ides matched the
slus and ca"t"ides "ecove"ed f"om the scene of the c"ime 'as not "eliable. Appellants also assail
Case"3s failu"e to ta!e the necessa"# photo"aphs to suppo"t his findins.
An e,pe"t 'itness is &one 'ho belons to the p"ofession o" callin to 'hich the subAect matte" of the
in$ui"# "elates and 'ho possesses special !no'lede on $uestions on 'hich he p"oposes to
e,p"ess an opinion.&
18
-he"e is no definite standa"d of dete"minin the de"ee of s!ill o" !no'lede
that a 'itness must possess in o"de" to testif# as an e,pe"t. It is sufficient that the follo'in facto"s
be p"esent; (/* t"ainin and educationJ (6* pa"ticula", fi"st%hand familia"it# 'ith the facts of the caseJ
and (1* p"esentation of autho"ities o" standa"ds upon 'hich his opinion is based.
1.
-he $uestion of
'hethe" a 'itness is p"ope"l# $ualified to ive an e,pe"t opinion on ballistics "ests 'ith the disc"etion
of the t"ial cou"t.
>0
In ivin c"edence to Case"3s e,pe"t testimon#, the t"ial cou"t e,plained;
-he defense do'n"aded the capabilit# of Case" in fo"ensics ballistics and identif#in
fi"ea"ms. Much st"ess is iven to the absence of photo"aphs of his e,amination.
Nonetheless, the Cou"t is satisfied ('ith* Case"3s e,amination, findins and conclusions 'ith
the use of a mic"oscope. Case"3s conclusion based on his e,amination dese"ves c"edit. <e
found the imp"essions on the p"ime" of the fi"ed ca"t"ides that 'e"e test%fi"ed to have the
same cha"acte"istics 'ith those "ecove"ed at the scene of the c"ime. )heneve" a t"ie"man
pumps a bullet (into* the bod# of his victim, he "eleases a chun! of conc"ete evidence that
binds him insepa"abl# to his act. Eve"# un ba""el deepl# imp"ints on eve"# bullet its
cha"acte"istic ma"!in peculia" to that un and that un alone. -hese ma"!in miht be
mic"oscopic but the# a"e te""ibl# vocal in announcin thei" o"iin. And the# a"e as infallible fo"
pu"poses of identification, as the p"int left b# the human fine".
>/
)e a"ee 'ith the t"ial cou"t that PEInspecto" Case" $ualifies as a ballistics e,pe"t. <e is a licensed
c"iminoloist, t"ained at the Ballistics Command and 4abo"ato"# Cente" in 5o"t Bonifacio, in the PNP
C"ime 4abo"ato"# in Camp C"ame, and in the National Bu"eau of Investiation. <e had p"eviousl#
testified as an e,pe"t 'itness in at least t'ent#%seven (6?* mu"de" and homicide cases all ove" the
count"#.
>6
An e,pe"t 'itness need not p"esent compa"ative mic"ophoto"aphs of test bullets and
ca"t"ides to suppo"t his findins.
>1
E,amination unde" a compa"ison mic"oscope sho'in that the
test bullet and the evidence bullet both came f"om the same un is sufficient.
>>
Mo"eove", the
ballistician conclusivel# found simila" cha"acte"istic ma"!ins in the evidence, test ca"t"ides and
slus.
Fifth, appellants ave" that the p"osecution failed to sho' an# plausible motive fo" appellants to !ill
the victim. -he p"osecution t"ied to p"ove that thei" co%accused Navales instiated them to !ill the
victim because Navales had a "ude aainst him. <o'eve", as Navales 'as ac$uitted, appellants
insist that Navales3 ac$uittal should "edound to thei" benefit since no motive 'as imputed on thei"
pa"t.
Motive is not an essential element of a c"ime,
>7
pa"ticula"l# of mu"de".
>9
It becomes "elevant onl#
'he"e the"e is no positive evidence of an accused3s di"ect pa"ticipation in the commission of a
c"ime.
>?
Stated othe"'ise, p"oof of motive becomes essential to a conviction onl# 'he"e the evidence
of an accused3s pa"ticipation in an offense is ci"cumstantial.
>8
A ca"eful pe"usal of the State3s
evidence "eveals that the p"osecution had established sufficient motive 'h# appellants !illed the
victim, independent of an# "ude 'hich Navales ma# have had aainst the latte". At the time of the
incident, appellants Ab"iol and Dosdos 'e"e both BB2C detention p"isone"s du"in Navales3 te"m as
'a"den. Ab"iol and Dosdos 'e"e t"eated as hihl# favo"ed &t"ustees& of Navales and 'e"e neve"
loc!ed up. Ab"iol and Dosdos 'e"e even allo'ed to o out of BB2C to do the ma"!etin fo" the
p"ison3s !itchen. Appellant Astelle"o, a fo"me" detention p"isone", 'as also a "ecipient of Navales3
favo"s. Navales hi"ed Astelle"o as his pe"sonal d"ive" afte" the latte" se"ved his sentence. Navales
and the victim, a fo"me" BB2C Aailua"d, 'e"e associates in dealin 'ith p"ohibited d"us, until the#
had a fallin out alleedl# afte" the victim failed to "emit to Navales p"oceeds f"om the sale of illeal
d"us amountin to P1/,000. Appellants appa"entl# !illed the victim to "etu"n the &special favo"s&
Navales had sho'e"ed them. 4ac! of a motive does not necessa"il# p"eclude conviction. Pe"sons
have been !illed o" assaulted fo" no "eason at all, and f"iendship o" even "elationship is no dete""ent
to the commission of a c"ime.
>.
Si#th, in the p"esent case, appellants contend that the PNP cannot be p"esumed to have done thei"
'o"! since it committed e""o"s and blunde"s in t"ansfe""in possession and custod# of the ph#sical
evidence. -he# allee the"e 'as a possibilit# that the evidence 'as tainted, planted, o"
manufactu"ed. Besides, appellants point out that the p"esumption of "eula"it# cannot p"evail ove"
the constitutional p"esumption of innocence of the accused.
-he "eco"d sho's that the police office"s did not issue ac!no'ledment "eceipts in some instances.
<o'eve", mino" lapses do not mean that the State had failed to sho' an unb"o!en chain of custod#
of the subAect fi"ea"ms and ammunition, no" that said fi"ea"ms and ammunition 'e"e tampe"ed. -he
slus and spent shells "ecove"ed f"om the scene of the c"ime and the victim3s co"pse 'e"e plainl#
identified in open cou"t b# the PNP investiato"s. -he ballistician testified that the bullets and
ca"t"ides "ecove"ed f"om the c"ime scene had been fi"ed f"om the subAect handuns. +nde" these
ci"cumstances, 'e must "espect the p"esumption of the "eula"it# in the pe"fo"mance of duties.
Seventh, appellants insist that the p"osecution failed to sho' that the "ed &Fiff#& used b# them and
sei@ed b# the police office"s 'as the same vehicle used b# the unmen 'ho !illed AleAand"o 5lo"es.
Appellants point out that PO1 2ustela, 'ho 'as aboa"d police ca" No. 60/, testified that the# lost
siht of the "ed &Fiff#& 'hile chasin it alon 4eon Pilat St"eet. Appellants a"ue that the &Fiff#& 'hich
'as chased b# pat"ol ca" No. 608 until it 'as co"ne"ed nea" BB2C b# the othe" pu"suin pat"ol ca"s
'as not the same vehicle o"iinall# sihted and tailed b# pat"ol ca" No. 60/.
In "eAectin this theo"#, the t"ial cou"t stated that;
. . . PO1 2ustela 'ho 'as nea"b#, immediatel# "an to the scene of the c"ime and met the "ed
Aiff# 'ith th"ee pe"sons on boa"d, that speedil# passed b# him p"oceedin to'a"ds 4eon Pilat
St"eet. Ca" 608 "eadil# pic!ed up the t"ail and pu"sued the "ed Aiff# f"om 4eon Pilat, then
ma!in ab"upt tu"ns on do'nto'n st"eets until othe" pat"ol ca"s Aoined the chase and
captu"ed them in 4ahu, nea" the BB2C. -he identit# of the "ed Aiff# 'as neve" inte""upted.
Membe"s of the Mobile Pat"ol Ca"s identified in cou"t 'ithout battin an e#elash, the "ed Aiff#
'hich 'as the obAect of the shootin ala"m. -he"e 'as no inte""uption, no let%up in the chase,
"iht afte" AleAand"o 5lo"es 'as shot and the"e 'as no othe" "ed Aiff# that the c"e's of the
(pu"suin* pat"ol ca"s noticed.
-he Cou"t "eAects thei" claim of innocence, fo" thei" ve"# acts belied the same.
Astelle"o could have stopped the Aeep upon noticin that pat"ol ca"s 'e"e al"ead# "unnin
afte" them 'ith si"ens, blin!e"s and 'a"nin shots fi"ed. 5"om 4eon Pilat St"eet to 4ahu
ai"po"t, the"e 'e"e seve"al police stations that the# could have souht shelte" and police
assistance. :uilt has man# 'a#s of su"facin. Instead of stoppin, Ab"iol o"de"ed Astelle"o to
accele"ate thei" speed. -hei" obvious pu"pose 'as to elude the pat"ol ca"s. 5liht is
indicative of uilt.
70
But, in this case, is the totalit# of the ci"cumstantial evidence "elied upon b# the t"ial cou"t sufficient to
suppo"t a convictionG
Ci"cumstantial evidence is that 'hich indi"ectl# p"oves a fact in issue. 5o" ci"cumstantial evidence to
be sufficient to suppo"t a conviction, all the ci"cumstances must be consistent 'ith each othe",
consistent 'ith the theo"# that the accused is uilt# of the offense cha"ed, and at the same time
inconsistent 'ith the h#pothesis that he is innocent and 'ith eve"# othe" possible, "ational
h#pothesis, e,cept that of uilt.
7/
An accused can be convicted on the basis of ci"cumstantial
evidence 'he"e all the ci"cumstances constitute an unb"o!en chain leadin to one fai" and
"easonable conclusion pointin to the accused, to the e,clusion of all othe"s, as the culp"it.
76
In ou" assessment, the p"osecution3s evidence constitutes an unb"o!en chain of events leadin to
the inevitable conclusion of uilt on the pa"t of appellants. 5i"st, the fatal shootin of AleAand"o 5lo"es
occu""ed at a"ound //;70 P.M. of Fune 7, /..1 in f"ont of the ABS%CBN compound in Cebu Cit#. -he
unman, 'ho 'as tall and thin, alihted f"om a "ed &Fiff#,& pumped seve"al bullets into the p"one
victim, and ot bac! aboa"d the &Fiff#& 'hich then sped to'a"ds 4eon Pilat St"eet. Second,
e#e'itness 2omeo Sta. C"u@, F".3s desc"iption of the unman as &tall and thin& pe"fectl# matches the
ph#si$ue of appellant Ab"iol. -hi"d, PO1 Ale,ande" 2ustela, 'ho 'as close to the c"ime scene,
hea"d the unshots and "an to'a"ds the place 'he"e the sound of unshots emanated. A "ed &Fiff#&
'ith th"ee pe"sons aboa"d 'hi@@ed b# him and ab"uptl# tu"ned at 4eon Pilat St"eet. Afte" Sta. C"u@,
F". info"med him that the unmen 'e"e aboa"d a "ed &Fiff#,& 2ustela boa"ded pat"ol ca" No. 60/,
"adioed an ala"m, and commenced a pu"suit of the fleein vehicle. Police ca" no. 608 "eceived the
ala"m, and on tu"nin into 4eon Pilat St"eet, encounte"ed the speedin "ed &Fiff#.& -he# immediatel#
chased the &Fiff#& but failed to catch it. Police ca"s Nos. 608 and 607 co"ne"ed the vehicle in f"ont of
the Don Bosco buildin nea" BB2C. PO6 :e"ald Cue, on pat"ol ca" no. 607 fi"ed a 'a"nin shot at
the vehicle and di"ected all those aboa"d to disemba"!. -h"ee men ot out, 'ith thei" hands "aised.
SPO/ Ab"iana, on pat"ol ca" no. 608 and PO6 Cue app"oached the t"io. Ab"iana f"is!ed the man
'ho 'as seated in the f"ont passene" seat, 'ho tu"ned out to be appellant Ab"iol, and "ecove"ed
f"om his 'aist a .18 calibe" "evolve" 'ith si, empt# shells. Cue sea"ched the "ed &Fiff#& and found t'o
loaded .>7 calibe" pistols unde" the f"ont seat 'he"e Ab"iol had sat. Othe" police office"s immediatel#
'ent to the c"ime scene 'he"e the# found the victim ba"el# alive. PO1 Seville "et"ieved fou" .>7
calibe" slus and t'o defo"med slus at the spot 'he"e the victim 'as shot. -he autops# of the
victim3s "emains sho'ed that he died of ca"dio "espi"ato"# a""est due to shoc! and hemo""hae
seconda"# to unshot 'ounds. A defo"med metal Aac!et of a .18 calibe" slu 'as "ecove"ed f"om the
co"pse. Ballistics tests sho'ed that the bullets and ca"t"ides had identical individual cha"acte"istics
'ith those of the test bullets and ca"t"ides. Pa"affin tests conducted on each of the appellants, one
da# afte" the incident, "evealed that all 'e"e positive fo" unpo'de" "esidues. -he subAect fi"ea"ms
'e"e also chemicall# e,amined and found positive fo" unpo'de" "esidue. Befo"e the shootin
incident, appellants 'e"e seen at Navales3 house until a"ound ?;10 P.M., 'hen the# left aboa"d
Navales3 "ed &Fiff#& 'ith Astelle"o d"ivin, Ab"iol in the f"ont passene" seat, and Dosdos in the bac!
seat.
71
Appellants3 seatin a""anements 'e"e e,actl# the same, seve"al hou"s late", afte" the# 'e"e
pu"sued and co"ne"ed b# police ca"s nea" BB2C. Appellants admitted that the# d"opped b# the
Navales "esidence at a"ound ?;00 P.M. and //;00 P.M.
-hese unb"o!en chain of events p"ove not onl# appellants3 identities but also thei" pa"ticipation and
collective "esponsibilit# in the mu"de" of AleAand"o 5lo"es. -he# "eveal a unit# of pu"pose and
conce"ted action evidencin thei" conspi"ac# to !ill him. Aainst this mat"i, of facts and
ci"cumstances, appellants3 ba"e denials cannot stand. -hei" sto"# of chasin a "ed &Fiff#& is me"el# a
disinenuous dive"sion of no evidentia"# value fo" the defense.
5inall#, the info"mation fo" mu"de" alleed t"eache"# and evident p"emeditation. )e note, thouh,
that the t"ial cou"t did not state 'hich ci"cumstance $ualified the !illin into mu"de".
A "evie' of the "eco"d 'ould "eveal that the"e 'as no evident p"emeditation. -he"e is evident
p"emeditation 'hen the follo'in a"e sho'n; (a* the time 'hen the accused dete"mined to commit
the c"imeJ (b* an act o" acts manifestl# indicatin that the accused has clun to his dete"minationJ
and (c* a lapse of time bet'een the dete"mination to commit the c"ime and the e,ecution the"eof
sufficient to allo' him to "eflect upon the conse$uences of his act.
7>
Evident p"emeditation indicates
delibe"ate plannin and p"epa"ation. No'he"e in the "eco"d is it sho'n 'hen and ho' appellants
planned and p"epa"ed to !ill the victim.
Conce"nin t"eache"#, ho'eve", it 'as sho'n that; (/* the means of e,ecution emplo#ed ave the
pe"son attac!ed no oppo"tunit# to defend himself o" "etaliateJ and (6* the means of e,ecution 'as
delibe"atel# o" consciousl# adopted.
77
-hese t'in "e$uisites 'e"e ade$uatel# p"oved.
Appellants had supe"io"it# in numbe"s and 'eapons. -he victim 'as 'ithout an# means to defend
himself as no 'eapon 'as found o" even intimated to be in his possession. -he victim 'as "unnin
a'a# f"om the &Fiff#& p"io" to the !illin. -hat he 'as 'a"ned o" th"eatened ea"lie" is of no moment.
Even 'hen the victim is 'a"ned of dane" to his pe"son, if the e,ecution of the attac! made it
impossible fo" the victim to defend himself o" to "etaliate, t"eache"# can still be app"eciated.
79
-he
victim 'as l#in p"ost"ate on the "ound 'hen he 'as delibe"atel# and me"cilessl# "iddled 'ith
bullets. -he 'eapons used, the numbe" of assailants, the s'ift and planned manne" of the attac!,
and the multiple numbe" of 'ounds inflicted upon the victim all demonst"ate a dete"mined assault
'ith intent to !ill the victim. No doubt the"e 'as t"eache"#.
B. -riminal -ase 5o. -B,%66>>?
On thei" conviction fo" illeal possession of fi"ea"ms, appellants contend that the handuns and
ammunition alleedl# ta!en f"om them b# the police office"s 'e"e illeall# sei@ed. -he# asse"t that
the police had no 'a""ant to effect a sea"ch and sei@u"e, such that these illeall# sei@ed fi"ea"ms
'e"e inadmissible as evidence, and it 'as e""o" fo" the t"ial cou"t to admit them.
-he"e a"e eiht (8* instances 'he"e a 'a""antless sea"ch and sei@u"e is valid. -he# a"e; (/*
consented sea"chesJ
7?
(6* as an incident to a la'ful a""estJ
78
(1* sea"ches of vessels and ai"c"aft fo"
violation of immi"ation, customs, and d"u la'sJ
7.
(>* sea"ches of movin vehiclesJ
90
(7* sea"ches of
automobiles at bo"de"s o" const"uctive bo"de"sJ (9* 'he"e the p"ohibited a"ticles a"e in &plain
vie'J&
9/
(?* sea"ches of buildins and p"emises to enfo"ce fi"e, sanita"#, and buildin "eulationsJ and
(8* &stop and f"is!& ope"ations.
96
In this case, the 'a""antless sea"ch and sei@u"e of the subAect handuns and ammunition is valid fo"
t'o "easons. It 'as a sea"ch incidental to a la'ful a""est. It 'as made afte" a fatal shootin, and
pu"suit of a fast%movin vehicle see!in to elude pu"suin police office"s, and a mo"e than
"easonable belief on the pa"t of the police office"s that the fleein suspects aboa"d said vehicle had
Aust enaed in c"iminal activit#. -he u"ent need of the police to ta!e immediate action in the liht of
the fo"eoin e,iencies clea"l# satisfies the "e$ui"ements fo" 'a""antless a""ests unde" the 2ules of
Cou"t.
91
Mo"eove", 'hen cauht in flagrante delicto 'ith fi"ea"ms and ammunition 'hich the# 'e"e
not autho"i@ed to ca""#, appellants 'e"e actuall# violatin P.D. No. /899, anothe" "ound fo" valid
a""est unde" the 2ules.
9>
Appellants fu"the" contend that the t"ial cou"t e""ed in convictin appellants Astelle"o and Dosdos of
illeal possession of fi"ea"ms. -he# point out that the .18 calibe" "evolve" 'as "ecove"ed f"om
appellant Ab"iol, 'ho as a policeman 'as autho"i@ed to ca""# and possess said fi"ea"m, as
evidenced b# his Memo"andum 2eceipt (M2*, 'hich had &not been "ecalled, cancelled o" "evo!ed
until the time of the t"ial of these cases.& Appellants claim that the t'o .>7 calibe" pistols could have
been left in the vehicle b# PNP pe"sonnel assined at BB2C, conside"in that the "ed &Fiff#& 'as
ene"all# used as a se"vice vehicle b# BB2C pe"sonnel. -he# also a"ue that the p"osecution failed
to p"ove appellants3 o'ne"ship, cont"ol, and possession of the .>7 calibe" pistols, conside"in that
appellants 'e"e si, mete"s a'a# f"om the &Fiff#& 'hen said handuns 'e"e alleedl# found.
-o sustain a conviction fo" violation of P.D. No. /899, the p"osecution must p"ove t'o elements of
the offense; (/* the e,istence of the subAect fi"ea"mJ (6* the fact that the accused 'ho o'ned o"
possessed the fi"ea"m does not have the co""espondin license o" pe"mit to possess it.
97
-hese the
p"osecution did. It p"esented a .18 calibe" "evolve" 'ith se"ial numbe" PO8>>7, a .>7 calibe" pistol
'ith se"ial numbe" P:O /1709 Pa"a O"dinance, and a .>7 calibe" pistol 'ith se"ial numbe" 76>9..
-he .18 calibe" handun 'as "ecove"ed f"om appellant Ab"iol, 'hile the t'o .>7 calibe" automatics
'e"e found and sei@ed f"om unde" the f"ont passene" seat of appellants3 vehicle. SPO> A$uilles
5amoso of the Cebu Cit# PNP Met"opolitan Dist"ict Command3s 5i"ea"ms and E,plosive +nit
testified that appellants 'e"e not listed as licensed fi"ea"m o'ne"s in Cebu Cit#.
99
-he p"osecution
also p"esented a ce"tification f"om PESenio" Inspecto" Ed'in 2o$ue of the 5i"ea"ms and E,plosives
Division of PNP <ead$ua"te"s at Camp C"ame, Lue@on Cit# that appellant Ab"iol is not licensed to
hold an# fi"ea"mJ that the .>7 calibe" pistols 'e"e unlicensedJ and that a ce"tification f"om the PNP
5i"ea"ms and E,plosives Office attestin that a pe"son is not a licensee of an# fi"ea"m, p"oves
be#ond "easonable doubt the second element of illeal possession of fi"ea"m.
9?
Ab"iol insists that he had a valid M2 autho"i@in him to ca""# the .18 "evolve". )e a"ee 'ith the
obse"vation of the t"ial cou"t that;
-he claim of Ab"iol that .18 calibe" 'as issued to him, as evidenced b# the co""espondin
"eceipt (M2*, is of no moment. )hile an M2 is an autho"it# of Ab"iol to possess the
ove"nment fi"ea"m that 'as issued to him, 'hen he 'as cha"ed and detained at BB2C fo"
an ea"lie" case of mu"de", othe" than the case at ba", he 'as al"ead# then at that moment a
detained p"isone" and the"efo"e, (un*autho"i@ed to ca""# a fi"ea"m. A milita"# man o" a
membe" of the PNP 'ho commits a c"ime, is immediatel# disa"med upon his a""est and
st"ipped of all the "ihts and p"ivilees that o 'ith the function of his office, and this
includes, in the case of Ab"iol, his M2. -hus, 'hen he shot AleAand"o 5lo"es 'ith his .18
calibe" "evolve", this fi"ea"m 'as al"ead# unautho"i@ed and its use and possession illeal.
98
Even if Ab"iol3s M2 'as valid, said autho"i@ation 'as limited onl# to the .18 calibe" "evolve" and not
the t'o .>7 calibe" automatic pistols found unde" the f"ont passene" seat of the &Fiff#.& Appellants
'e"e still in the unla'ful possession of the .>7 calibe" pistols. +nde" P.D. No. /899, possession is not
limited to actual possession.
9.
In this case, appellants had cont"ol ove" the pistols. -he# 'e"e all
liable since conspi"ac# 'as established and the act of one is the act of all.
?0
Appellants claim that the# 'e"e si, mete"s a'a# f"om the &Fiff#& 'hen it 'as sea"ched and the t'o .
>7 calibe" pistols 'e"e sei@ed. -he# suest that the policemen 'ho sea"ched the vehicle could
have planted said fi"ea"ms. -he t"ial cou"t found that the# 'e"e in fact onl# one mete" a'a# f"om the
vehicle. 5indins of fact of the t"ial cou"t, 'hen suppo"ted b# the evidence on "eco"d, a"e bindin and
conclusive upon appellate cou"ts.
?/
All told, on the cha"e of illeal possession of fi"ea"ms, no "eve"sible e""o" 'as committed b# the t"ial
cou"t 'hen it found appellants uilt# be#ond "easonable doubt.
-he Office of the Solicito" :ene"al "ecommends that althouh appellants 'e"e cha"ed 'ith and
convicted of t'o sepa"ate offenses of mu"de" and violation of P.D. No. /899, 2.A. No. 86.>, 'hich
amended said dec"ee, should be applied to appellants "et"oactivel#, citin People v. Molina, 6.6
SC2A ?>6, ??. (/..8* inte"p"etin 2.A. No. 86.>.
)e a"ee. )e "uled in Molina that 'ith the passae of 2.A. No. 86.> on Fune 9, /..?, the use of an
unlicensed fi"ea"m in mu"de" o" homicide is not a sepa"ate c"ime, but me"el# a special a"avatin
ci"cumstance. -his 'as "ecentl# "eite"ated in People v. -astillo, :.2. Nos. /1/7.6%.1, 5eb"ua"# /7,
6000.
?6
Appellants a"e thus uilt# onl# of mu"de" 'ith the special a"avatin ci"cumstance of use of
unlicensed fi"ea"ms. -he imposition of the penalt# of reclusion perpetua cannot ho'eve" be modified
since the mu"de" too! place befo"e the effectivit# of 2.A. No. ?97..
A final 'o"d on the damaes. In addition to the a'a"d of P70,000 as indemnit# e# delicto, the t"ial
cou"t a'a"ded P10,000 in actual damaes, &"ep"esentin a "easonable amount fo" the embalmin,
viil, 'a!e and bu"ial e,penses,& and P10,000 as atto"ne#3s fees. -o be entitled to actual damaes, it
is necessa"# to p"ove the actual amount of loss 'ith a "easonable de"ee of ce"taint#, p"emised
upon competent p"oof, and on the best evidence obtainable b# the inAu"ed pa"t#.
?1
No such evidence
'as offe"ed. -he a'a"d of actual damaes must, the"efo"e, be deleted. <o'eve", tempe"ate
damaes ma# be a'a"ded since the famil# of the victim has demonst"abl# spent fo" the 'a!e,
fune"al and bu"ial a""anements. -he amount of P60,000 should suffice as tempe"ate damaes. In
addition, 'e find an a'a"d of e,empla"# damaes in o"de", pu"suant to A"ticle 6610 of the Civil
Code.
?>
-he !illin 'as attended b# the special a"avatin ci"cumstance of use of unlicensed
fi"ea"ms. Mo"eove", the public ood demands that detained p"isone"s should not abuse thei" status
as &t"ustees.& <ad the police been unsuccessful in thei" pu"suit of appellants, the latte" 'ould have
used the BB2C as shelte" and as an alibi that the# could not have committed the c"ime since the#
'e"e then in detention. -hus, 'e find an a'a"d of P/0,000 as e,empla"# damaes in o"de".
Acco"dinl#, the a'a"d of atto"ne#3s fees is sustained.
?7
)<E2E5O2E, the assailed Decision of the 2eional -"ial Cou"t of Cebu Cit#, B"anch /0, in C"iminal
Cases Nos. CB+%10170 and CB+%1199> is he"eb# MODI5IED. Appellants Albe"t Ab"iol, Maca"io
Astelle"o, and Fanua"io Dosdos a"e he"eb# found :+I4-= of mu"de", $ualified b# t"eache"#, 'ith the
special a"avatin ci"cumstance of use of unlicensed fi"ea"ms and a"e he"eb# sentenced to suffe"
the penalt# of "eclusion pe"petua 'ith the accesso"# penalties p"ovided fo" b# la'. Appellants Ab"iol,
Astelle"o, and Dosdos a"e also o"de"ed to pa#, Aointl# and seve"all#, the hei"s of AleAand"o 5lo"es the
sum of P70,000 as death indemnit#, P60,000 as tempe"ate damaes, P/0,000 as e,empla"#
damaes, and P10,000 as atto"ne#3s fees, as 'ell as the costs.
ECOND DIVISION



ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA,
Petitioner,




- versus -





EDWARD RUMBAUA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 166738

Present:


*
CARPIO-MORALES,
Acting Chairperson,

**
CARPIO,

***
CHICO-NAZARIO,


****
LEONARDO-DE
CASRO, !nd
"RION, JJ.

Pro#u$%!ted:

Au%ust &', ())*
+ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

Petitioner Ro,en! P!di$$!-Ru#-!u! .petitioner/ 01!$$en%es, t1rou%1 1er
petition 2or revie, on certiorari,
3&4
t1e de0ision d!ted 5une (6, ())'
3(4
!nd t1e
reso$ution d!ted 5!nu!r7 &8, ())6
394
o2 t1e Court o2 Appe!$s .CA/ in CA-G.R. CV
No. 75095. 1e 01!$$en%ed de0ision reversed t1e de0ision
3'4
o2 t1e Re%ion!$ ri!$
Court .RTC/ de0$!rin% t1e #!rri!%e o2 t1e petitioner !nd respondent Ed,!rd
Ru#-!u! .respondent/ nu$$ !nd void on t1e %round o2 t1e $!tter:s ps701o$o%i0!$
in0!p!0it7. 1e !ss!i$ed reso$ution, on t1e ot1er 1!nd, denied t1e petitioner:s
#otion 2or re0onsider!tion.

ANECEDEN !ACS

1e present petition tr!0es its roots to t1e petitioner:s 0o#p$!int 2or t1e
de0$!r!tion o2 nu$$it7 o2 #!rri!%e !%!inst t1e respondent -e2ore t1e RC, do0;eted
!s Civi$ C!se No. <=<. 1e petitioner !$$e%ed t1!t t1e respondent ,!s
ps701o$o%i0!$$7 in0!p!0it!ted to e+er0ise t1e essenti!$ o-$i%!tions o2 #!rri!%e !s
s1o,n -7 t1e 2o$$o,in% 0ir0u#st!n0es: t1e respondent rene%ed on 1is pro#ise to
$ive ,it1 1er under one roo2 !2ter 2indin% ,or;> 1e 2!i$ed to e+tend 2in!n0i!$
support to 1er> 1e -$!#ed 1er 2or 1is #ot1er:s de!t1> 1e represented 1i#se$2 !s
sin%$e in 1is tr!ns!0tions> !nd 1e pretended to -e ,or;in% in D!v!o, !$t1ou%1 1e
,!s 0o1!-itin% ,it1 !not1er ,o#!n in Nov!$i01es, ?ue@on Cit7.

Su##ons ,!s served on t1e respondent t1rou%1 su-stituted servi0e, !s
person!$ servi0e proved 2uti$e.
364
1e RC ordered t1e provin0i!$ prose0utor to
investi%!te i2 0o$$usion e+isted -et,een t1e p!rties !nd to ensure t1!t no 2!-ri0!tion
or suppression o2 eviden0e ,ou$d t!;e p$!0e.
3=4
Prose0utor Me$vin P. ion%son:s
report ne%!ted t1e presen0e o2 0o$$usion -et,een t1e p!rties.
3<4

1e Repu-$i0 o2 t1e P1i$ippines .Republic/, t1rou%1 t1e o22i0e o2 t1e
So$i0itor Aener!$ .OSG/, opposed t1e petition.
384
1e OSA entered its !ppe!r!n0e
!nd deputi@ed t1e Provin0i!$ Prose0utor o2 Nuev! Bi@0!7! to !ssist in !$$ 1e!rin%s
o2 t1e 0!se.
3*4

1e petitioner presented testi#oni!$ !nd do0u#ent!r7 eviden0e to
su-st!nti!te 1er 01!r%es.

1e petitioner re$!ted t1!t s1e !nd t1e respondent ,ere 01i$d1ood nei%1-ors
in Dup!+ de$ Norte, Nuev! Bi@0!7!. So#eti#e in &*8<, t1e7 #et !%!in !nd
-e0!#e s,eet1e!rts -ut t1e respondent:s 2!#i$7 did not !pprove o2 t1eir
re$!tions1ip. A2ter %r!du!tion 2ro# 0o$$e%e in &**&, t1e respondent pro#ised to
#!rr7 t1e petitioner !s soon !s 1e 2ound ! Co-. 1e Co- 0!#e in &**9, ,1en t1e
P1i$ippine Air Lines .PAL/ !00epted t1e respondent !s ! 0o#puter en%ineer. 1e
respondent proposed to t1e petitioner t1!t t1e7 2irst 1!ve ! Dse0ret #!rri!%eE in
order not to !nt!%oni@e 1is p!rents. 1e petitioner !%reed> t1e7 ,ere #!rried
in M!ni$! on Fe-ru!r7 (9, &**9. 1e petitioner !nd t1e respondent, 1o,ever, never
$ived to%et1er> t1e petitioner st!7ed ,it1 1er sister in F!irvie,, ?ue@on Cit7, ,1i$e
t1e respondent $ived ,it1 1is p!rents in Nov!$i01es.

1e petitioner !nd respondent s!, e!01 ot1er ever7 d!7 durin% t1e 2irst si+
#ont1s o2 t1eir #!rri!%e. At t1!t point, t1e respondent re2used to $ive ,it1 t1e
petitioner 2or 2e!r t1!t pu-$i0 ;no,$ed%e o2 t1eir #!rri!%e ,ou$d !22e0t 1is
!pp$i0!tion 2or ! PAL s01o$!rs1ip. Seven #ont1s into t1eir #!rri!%e, t1e 0oup$e:s
d!i$7 #eetin%s -e0!#e o00!sion!$ visits to t1e petitioner:s 1ouse in F!irvie,> t1e7
,ou$d 1!ve se+u!$ tr7sts in #ote$s. L!ter t1!t 7e!r, t1e respondent enro$$ed
!t FEAI Gniversit7 !2ter 1e $ost 1is e#p$o7#ent ,it1 PAL.
3&)4

In &**', t1e p!rties: respe0tive 2!#i$ies dis0overed t1eir se0ret
#!rri!%e. 1e respondent:s #ot1er tried to 0onvin0e 1i# to %o to t1e Gnited
St!tes, -ut 1e re2used. o !ppe!se 1is #ot1er, 1e 0ontinued $ivin% sep!r!te$7 2ro#
t1e petitioner. 1e respondent 2or%ot to %reet t1e petitioner durin% 1er -irt1d!7 in
&**( !nd $i;e,ise 2!i$ed to send 1er %reetin% 0!rds on spe0i!$ o00!sions. 1e
respondent indi0!ted !s ,e$$ in 1is vis! !pp$i0!tion t1!t 1e ,!s sin%$e.

In Apri$ &**6, t1e respondent:s #ot1er died. 1e respondent -$!#ed t1e
petitioner, !sso0i!tin% 1is #ot1er:s de!t1 to t1e p!in t1!t t1e dis0over7 o2 1is se0ret
#!rri!%e -rou%1t. P!ined -7 t1e respondent:s !0tion, t1e petitioner severed 1er
re$!tions1ip ,it1 t1e respondent. 1e7 eventu!$$7 re0on0i$ed t1rou%1 t1e 1e$p o2
t1e petitioner:s 2!t1er, !$t1ou%1 t1e7 sti$$ $ived sep!r!te$7.

In &**<, t1e respondent in2or#ed t1e petitioner t1!t 1e 1!d 2ound ! Co-
in D!v!o. A 7e!r $!ter, t1e petitioner !nd 1er #ot1er ,ent to t1e respondent:s 1ouse
in Nov!$i01es !nd 2ound 1i# 0o1!-itin% ,it1 one C7nt1i! Bi$$!nuev!
.Cynthia/. H1en s1e 0on2ronted t1e respondent !-out it, 1e denied 1!vin% !n
!22!ir ,it1 C7nt1i!.
3&&4
1e petitioner !pp!rent$7 did not -e$ieve t1e respondents
!nd #oved to to Nuev! Bi@0!7! to re0over 2ro# t1e p!in !nd !n%uis1 t1!t 1er
dis0over7 -rou%1t.
3&(4

1e petitioner dis0$osed durin% 1er 0ross-e+!#in!tion t1!t 0o##uni0!tion
-et,een 1er !nd respondent 1!d 0e!sed. Aside 2ro# 1er or!$ testi#on7, t1e
petitioner !$so presented ! 0erti2ied true 0op7 o2 t1eir #!rri!%e 0ontr!0t>
3&94
!nd t1e
testi#on7, curriculum vitae,
3&'4
!nd ps701o$o%i0!$ report
3&64
o2 0$ini0!$ ps701o$o%ist
Dr. Ned7 Loren@o !7!% .r! Tayag/.

Dr. !7!% de0$!red on t1e ,itness st!nd t1!t s1e !d#inistered t1e 2o$$o,in%
tests on t1e petitioner: ! Revised "et! E+!#in!tion> ! "ender Bisu!$ Motor Aest!$t
est> ! Rors01!01 Ps701odi!%nosti0 est> ! Dr!, ! Person est> ! S!01:s Senten0e
Co#p$etion est> !nd MMPI.
3&=4
S1e t1ere!2ter prep!red ! ps701o$o%i0!$ report
,it1 t1e 2o$$o,in% 2indin%s:

ES RESULS AND EVALUAION

Ps701o#etri0 tests d!t! reve!$ petitioner to oper!te in !n !ver!%e
inte$$e0tu!$ $eve$. Lo%i0 !nd re!sonin% re#!ined int!0t. S1e is seen to -e
t1e t7pe o2 ,o#!n ,1o !dCusts 2!ir$7 ,e$$ into #ost situ!tions espe0i!$$7
i2 it is ,it1in 1er interests. S1e is pi0tured to -e 2!it12u$ to 1er
0o##it#ents !nd 1!d reserv!tions 2ro# ne%!tive 0riti0is#s su01 t1!t s1e
nor#!$$7 !d1eres to so0i!$ nor#s, -e1!vior-,ise. Her !%e spe!;s o2
#!turit7, -ot1 inte$$e0tu!$$7 !nd e#otion!$$7. Her one 2!u$t $ies in 1er
0o#p$i!nt !ttitude ,1i01 #!;es 1er ! su-Ce0t 2or #!nipu$!tion !nd
de0eption su01 t1!t o2 respondent. In !$$ t1e 7e!rs o2 t1eir re$!tions1ip, s1e
opted to endure 1is irresponsi-i$it7 $!r%e$7 -e0!use o2 t1e #ere -e$ie2 t1!t
so#ed!7 t1in%s ,i$$ -e #u01 -etter 2or t1e#. "ut upon t1e !dvent o2 1er
1us-!nd:s in2ide$it7, s1e %r!du!$$7 $ost 1ope !s ,e$$ !s t1e sense o2 se$2-
respe0t, t1!t s1e 1!s 2in!$$7 t!;en 1er too$ to -e !ssertive to t1e point o2
-ein% !%%ressive !nd ver7 0!utious !t ti#es I so !s to 2i%1t ,it1 t1e
2rustr!tion !nd inse0urit7 s1e 1!d espe0i!$$7 re%!rdin% 1er 2!i$ed #!rri!%e.

R"#$o%&"%' (% ')(# *+#", (# ,"-"+."& 'o o$",+'" (% + -",/ #".0-
*"%'","& 1+%%", +# )" 2".("-"# ')+' ')" 3o,.& ,"-o.-"# +,o4%& )(1.
5(# "6o*"%',(#1 1+&" (' #o "+#/ 0o, )(1 'o &"*"('04../ 4#" o')",# 0o,
)(# o3% +&-+%*"1"%' 3(') +% "7',"1" +(, o0 *o%0(&"%*" +%&
&o1(%+%*". 5" 3o4.& &o +*'(o%# 3(')o4' +%/ ,"1o,#" o, 64(.' 0"".(%6#
'o3+,&# o')",# "#$"*(+../ 'o ')+' o0 $"'('(o%",.

REMAR8S

Love 1!ppens to ever7one. It is du--ed to -e -ound$ess !s it %oes
-e7ond t1e e+pe0t!tions peop$e t!%%ed ,it1 it. In $ove, D!%e does #!tter.E
Peop$e $ove in order to -e se0ure t1!t one ,i$$ s1!re 1isJ1er $i2e ,it1
!not1er !nd t1!t 1eJs1e ,i$$ not die !$one. Individu!$s ,1o !re in $ove 1!d
t1e po,er to $et $ove %ro, or $et $ove die I it is ! 01oi0e one 1!d to 2!0e
,1en $ove is not t1e $ove 1eJs1e e+pe0ted.

In t1e 0!se presented -7 petitioner, it is ver7 !pp!rent t1!t $ove
re!$$7 1!ppened 2or 1er to,!rds t1e 7oun% respondent I ,1o used D$oveE
!s ! dis%uise or de0eptive t!0ti0 2or e+p$oitin% t1e 0on2iden0e s1e e+tended
to,!rds 1i#. He #!de 1er -e$ieve t1!t 1e is responsi-$e, true, 0!rin% !nd
t1ou%1t2u$ I on$7 to reve!$ 1i#se$2 0ontr!r7 to ,1!t ,!s #entioned. He
$!0;ed t1e 0o##it#ent, 2!it12u$ness, !nd re#orse t1!t 1e ,!s !-$e to
en%!%e 1i#se$2 to pro#is0uous !0ts t1!t #!de petitioner $oo; $i;e !n
inno0ent 2oo$. His 01!r!0ter tr!its reve!$ 1i# to su22er N!r0issisti0
Person!$it7 Disorder - de0$!red to -e %r!ve, severe !nd in0ur!-$e.
3&<4
3E#p1!sis supp$ied.4


)" RC R4.(%6

1e RC nu$$i2ied t1e p!rties: #!rri!%e in its de0ision o2 Apri$ &*,
())(. 1e tri!$ 0ourt s!, #erit in t1e testi#onies o2 t1e petitioner !nd Dr. !7!%,
!nd 0on0$uded !s 2o$$o,s:
+ + + +

Respondent ,!s never so$i0itous o2 t1e ,e$2!re !nd ,is1es o2 1is ,i2e.
Respondent i#posed $i#ited or -$o0; 3sic4 out 0o##uni0!tion ,it1 1is ,i2e,
2or%ettin% spe0i!$ o00!sions, $i;e petitioner:s -irt1d!7s !nd B!$entine:s D!7> %oin%
out on$7 on o00!sions despite t1eir $ivin% sep!r!te$7 !nd to %o to ! #ote$ to 1!ve
se+u!$ inter0ourse.

It ,ou$d !ppe!r t1!t t1e 2ore%oin% n!rr!tion !re t1e !ttend!nt 2!0ts in t1is
0!se ,1i01 s1o, t1e ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 o2 respondent, !t t1e ti#e o2 t1e
0e$e-r!tion o2 t1e #!rri!%e o2 t1e p!rties, to enter into $!,2u$ #!rri!%e !nd to
dis01!r%e 1is #!rit!$ responsi-i$ities .See Arti0$es =8 to <&, F!#i$7 Code/. 1is
in0!p!0it7 is Dde0$!red %r!ve, severe !nd in0ur!-$e.E

HHEREFORE, in vie, o2 t1e 2ore%oin%, t1e #!rri!%e -et,een petitioner
Ro,en! P!di$$! Ru#-!u! !nd respondent Ed,in Ru#-!u! is 1ere-7 de0$!red
!nnu$$ed.

SO ORDERED.
3&84


)" CA D"*(#(o%

1e Repu-$i0, t1rou%1 t1e OSA, !ppe!$ed t1e RC de0ision to t1e CA.
3&*4
1e CA de0ision o2 5une (6, ())' reversed !nd set !side t1e RC de0ision, !nd
denied t1e nu$$i2i0!tion o2 t1e p!rties: #!rri!%e.
3()4

In its ru$in%, t1e CA o-served t1!t Dr. !7!%:s ps701i!tri0 report did not
#ention t1e 0!use o2 t1e respondent:s so-0!$$ed Dn!r0issisti0 person!$it7 disorder>E
it did not dis0uss t1e respondent:s 01i$d1ood !nd t1us 2!i$ed to %ive t1e 0ourt !n
insi%1t into t1e respondent:s deve$op#ent!$ 7e!rs. Dr. !7!% $i;e,ise 2!i$ed to
e+p$!in ,17 s1e 0!#e to t1e 0on0$usion t1!t t1e respondent:s in0!p!0it7 ,!s
Ddeep-se!tedE !nd Din0ur!-$e.E

1e CA 1e$d t1!t Arti0$e 9= o2 t1e F!#i$7 Code reKuires t1e in0!p!0it7 to -e
ps701o$o%i0!$, !$t1ou%1 its #!ni2est!tions #!7 -e p17si0!$. Moreover, t1e
eviden0e presented #ust s1o, t1!t t1e in0!p!0it!ted p!rt7 ,!s #ent!$$7 or
p17si0!$$7 i$$ so t1!t 1e or s1e 0ou$d not 1!ve ;no,n t1e #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions
!ssu#ed, ;no,in% t1e#, 0ou$d not 1!ve !ssu#ed t1e#. In ot1er ,ords, t1e i$$ness
#ust -e s1o,n !s do,nri%1t in0!p!0it7 or in!-i$it7, not ! re2us!$, ne%$e0t, or
di22i0u$t7 to per2or# t1e essenti!$ o-$i%!tions o2 #!rri!%e. In t1e present 0!se, t1e
petitioner su22ered -e0!use t1e respondent !d!#!nt$7 re2used to $ive ,it1 1er
-e0!use o2 1is p!rents: o-Ce0tion to t1eir #!rri!%e.

1e petitioner #oved to re0onsider t1e de0ision, -ut t1e CA denied 1er
#otion in its reso$ution o2 5!nu!r7 &8, ())6.
3(&4

)" P"'('(o% +%& ')" I##4"#

1e petitioner !r%ues in t1e present petition t1!t I

&. t1e OSA 0erti2i0!tion reKuire#ent under Republic v!
"olina
3((4
.t1e "olina 0!se/ 0!nnot -e dispensed ,it1 -e0!use A.M. No.
)(-&&-&)-SC, ,1i01 re$!+ed t1e reKuire#ent, too; e22e0t on$7 on M!r01
&6, ())9>

(. v!0!tin% t1e de0ision o2 t1e 0ourts a #uo !nd re#!ndin% t1e 0!se to t1e
RC to re0!$$ 1er e+pert ,itness !nd 0ure t1e de2e0ts in 1er testi#on7, !s
,e$$ !s to present !ddition!$ eviden0e, ,ou$d te#per Custi0e ,it1 #er07>
!nd

9. Dr. !7!%:s testi#on7 in 0ourt 0ured t1e de2i0ien0ies in 1er ps701i!tri0
report.

1e petitioner pr!7s t1!t t1e RC:s !nd t1e CA:s de0isions -e reversed !nd
set !side, !nd t1e 0!se -e re#!nded to t1e RC 2or 2urt1er pro0eedin%s> in t1e
event ,e 0!nnot %r!nt t1is pr!7er, t1!t t1e CA:s de0ision -e set !side !nd t1e RC:s
de0ision -e reinst!ted.

1e Repu-$i0 #!int!ined in its 0o##ent t1!t: .!/ A.M. No. )(-&&-&)-SC
,!s !pp$i0!-$e !$t1ou%1 it too; e22e0t !2ter t1e pro#u$%!tion o2 "olina> .-/
inv!$id!tin% t1e tri!$ 0ourt:s de0ision !nd re#!ndin% t1e 0!se 2or 2urt1er
pro0eedin%s ,ere not proper> !nd .0/ t1e petitioner 2!i$ed to est!-$is1 respondent:s
ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7.
3(94

1e p!rties si#p$7 reiter!ted t1eir !r%u#ents in t1e #e#or!nd! t1e7 2i$ed.

5E COUR9S RULING

He reso$ve to &"%/ t1e petition 2or .+*: o0 1",('.

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is applicable

In "olina, t1e Court e#p1!si@ed t1e ro$e o2 t1e prose0utin% !ttorne7 or
2is0!$ !nd t1e OSA> t1e7 !re to !ppe!r !s 0ounse$ 2or t1e St!te in pro0eedin%s 2or
!nnu$#ent !nd de0$!r!tion o2 nu$$it7 o2 #!rri!%es:

.8/ 1e tri!$ 0ourt #ust order t1e prose0utin% !ttorne7 or 2is0!$ !nd t1e
So$i0itor Aener!$ to !ppe!r !s 0ounse$ 2or t1e st!te. No &"*(#(o% #)+.. 2" )+%&"&
&o3% 4%."## ')" So.(*('o, G"%",+. (##4"# + *",'(0(*+'(o%, 3)(*) 3(.. 2" ;4o'"&
(% ')" &"*(#(o%, 2,("0./ #'+'(%6 ')","(% )(# ,"+#o%# 0o, )(# +6,""1"%' o,
o$$o#('(o%, +# ')" *+#" 1+/ 2", 'o ')" $"'('(o%. 1e So$i0itor Aener!$, !$on%
,it1 t1e prose0utin% !ttorne7, s1!$$ su-#it to t1e 0ourt su01 0erti2i0!tion ,it1in
2i2teen .&6/ d!7s 2ro# t1e d!te t1e 0!se is dee#ed su-#itted 2or reso$ution o2 t1e
0ourt. 1e So$i0itor Aener!$ s1!$$ dis01!r%e t1e eKuiv!$ent 2un0tion o2
t1e de$ensor vinculi 0onte#p$!ted under C!non &)*6. 3E#p1!sis supp$ied.4


A.M. No. )(-&&-&)-SC
3('4
-- ,1i01 t1is Court pro#u$%!ted on M!r01 &6,
())9 !nd du$7 pu-$is1ed -- is %e!red to,!rds t1e re$!+!tion o2 t1e OSA
0erti2i0!tion t1!t "olinareKuired. Se0tion &8 o2 t1is re#edi!$ re%u$!tion provides:

SEC. &8. "emoranda. I 1e 0ourt #!7 reKuire t1e p!rties !nd t1e pu-$i0
prose0utor, in 0onsu$t!tion ,it1 t1e O22i0e o2 t1e So$i0itor Aener!$, to 2i$e t1eir
respe0tive #e#or!nd! in support o2 t1eir 0$!i#s ,it1in 2i2teen d!7s 2ro# t1e d!te
t1e tri!$ is ter#in!ted. It #!7 reKuire t1e O22i0e o2 t1e So$i0itor Aener!$ to 2i$e its
o,n #e#or!ndu# i2 t1e 0!se is o2 si%ni2i0!nt interest to t1e St!te. No ot1er
p$e!din%s or p!pers #!7 -e su-#itted ,it1out $e!ve o2 0ourt. A2ter t1e $!pse o2
t1e period 1erein provided, t1e 0!se ,i$$ -e 0onsidered su-#itted 2or de0ision,
,it1 or ,it1out t1e #e#or!nd!.

1e petitioner !r%ues t1!t t1e RC de0ision o2 Apri$ &*, ())( s1ou$d -e
v!0!ted 2or pre#!turit7, !s it ,!s rendered despite t1e !-sen0e o2 t1e reKuired OSA
0erti2i0!tion spe0i2ied in "olina. A00ordin% to t1e petitioner, A.M. No. )(-&&-&)-
SC, ,1i01 too; e22e0t on$7 on M!r01 &6, ())9, 0!nnot overturn t1e reKuire#ents
o2 "olina t1!t ,!s pro#u$%!ted !s e!r$7 !s Fe-ru!r7 &9, &**<.

1e petitioner:s !r%u#ent $!0;s #erit.

1e !#end#ent introdu0ed under A.M. No. )(-&&-&)-SC is pro0edur!$ or
re#edi!$ in 01!r!0ter> it does not 0re!te or re#ove !n7 vested ri%1t, -ut on$7
oper!tes !s ! re#ed7 in !id o2 or 0on2ir#!tion o2 !$re!d7 e+istin% ri%1ts. 1e
sett$ed ru$e is t1!t pro0edur!$ $!,s #!7 -e %iven retro!0tive e22e0t,
3(64
!s ,e 1e$d
in e Los Santos v! %da! de "angubat&
3(=4

Pro0edur!$ L!,s do not 0o#e ,it1in t1e $e%!$ 0on0eption o2 !
retro!0tive $!,, or t1e %ener!$ ru$e !%!inst t1e retro!0tive oper!tion o2 st!tues -
t1e7 #!7 -e %iven retro!0tive e22e0t on !0tions pendin% !nd undeter#ined !t t1e
ti#e o2 t1eir p!ss!%e !nd t1is ,i$$ not vio$!te !n7 ri%1t o2 ! person ,1o #!7 2ee$
t1!t 1e is !dverse$7 !22e0ted, inso#u01 !s t1ere !re no vested ri%1ts in ru$es o2
pro0edure.

A.M. No. )(-&&-&)-SC, !s ! re#edi!$ #e!sure, re#oved t1e #!nd!tor7
n!ture o2 !n OSA 0erti2i0!tion !nd #!7 -e !pp$ied retro!0tive$7 to pendin%
#!tters. In e22e0t, t1e #e!sure 0ures in !n7 pendin% #!tter !n7 pro0edur!$ $!pse
on t1e 0erti2i0!tion prior to its pro#u$%!tion. Our ru$in%s in Antonio v!
Reyes
[27]
!nd 'avales v! 'avales
3(84
1!ve sin0e 0on2ir#ed !nd 0$!ri2ied t1!t A.M.
No. )(-&&-&)-SC 1!s dispensed ,it1 t1e "olina %uide$ine on t1e #!tter o2
0erti2i0!tion, !$t1ou%1 Arti0$e '8 #!nd!tes t1e !ppe!r!n0e o2 t1e prose0utin% !ttorne7 or
2is0!$ to ensure t1!t no 0o$$usion -et,een t1e p!rties ,ou$d t!;e p$!0e. 1us, ,1!t is
i#port!nt is t1e presen0e o2 t1e prose0utor in t1e 0!se, not t1e re#edi!$ reKuire#ent t1!t 1e
-e 0erti2ied to -e present. Fro# t1is perspe0tive, t1e petitioner:s o-Ce0tion re%!rdin%
t1e "olina %uide$ine on 0erti2i0!tion $!0;s #erit.

A Remand of the Case to the RC is !mp"ope"

1e petitioner #!int!ins t1!t v!0!tin% t1e $o,er 0ourts: de0isions !nd t1e re#!nd
o2 t1e 0!se to t1e RC 2or 2urt1er re0eption o2 eviden0e !re pro0edur!$$7 per#issi-$e. S1e
!r%ues t1!t t1e in!deKu!07 o2 1er eviden0e durin% t1e tri!$ ,!s t1e 2!u$t o2 1er 2or#er
0ounse$, Att7. Ri01!rd !-!%o, !nd !sserts t1!t re#!ndin% t1e 0!se to t1e RC ,ou$d !$$o,
1er to 0ure t1e evidenti!r7 insu22i0ien0ies. S1e posits in t1is re%!rd t1!t ,1i$e #ist!;es o2
0ounse$ -ind ! p!rt7, t1e ru$e s1ou$d -e $i-er!$$7 0onstrued in 1er 2!vor to serve t1e ends o2
Custi0e.

He do not 2ind 1er !r%u#ents 0onvin0in%.

A re#!nd o2 t1e 0!se to t1e RC 2or 2urt1er pro0eedin%s !#ounts to t1e %r!nt o2 !
ne, tri!$ t1!t is not pro0edur!$$7 proper !t t1is st!%e. Se0tion & o2 Ru$e 9< provides t1!t !n
!%%rieved p!rt7 #!7 #ove t1e tri!$ 0ourt to set !side ! Cud%#ent or 2in!$
order !$re!d7 rendered !nd to %r!nt ! ne, tri!$ (ithin the period $or ta)ing an
appeal! In !ddition,! #otion 2or ne, tri!$ #!7 -e 2i$ed on$7 on t1e %rounds o2 .&/
2r!ud, !00ident, #ist!;e or e+0us!-$e ne%$i%en0e t1!t 0ou$d not 1!ve -een %u!rded
!%!inst -7 ordin!r7 pruden0e, !nd -7 re!son o2 ,1i01 t1e !%%rieved p!rt7:s ri%1ts
1!ve pro-!-$7 -een i#p!ired> or .(/ ne,$7 dis0overed eviden0e t1!t, ,it1
re!son!-$e di$i%en0e, t1e !%%rieved p!rt7 0ou$d not 1!ve dis0overed !nd produ0ed
!t t1e tri!$, !nd t1!t ,ou$d pro-!-$7 !$ter t1e resu$t i2 presented.

In t1e present 0!se, t1e petitioner 0ites t1e in!deKu!07 o2 t1e eviden0e
presented -7 1er 2or#er 0ounse$ !s -!sis 2or ! re#!nd. S1e did not, 1o,ever,
spe0i27 t1e in!deKu!07. 1!t t1e RC %r!nted t1e petition 2or de0$!r!tion o2
nu$$it7 prima $acie s1o,s t1!t t1e petitioner:s 0ounse$ 1!d not -een ne%$i%ent in
1!nd$in% t1e 0!se. Ar!ntin%arguendo t1!t t1e petitioner:s 0ounse$ 1!d -een
ne%$i%ent, t1e ne%$i%en0e t1!t ,ou$d Custi27 ! ne, tri!$ #ust -e e+0us!-$e, i!e! one
t1!t ordin!r7 di$i%en0e !nd pruden0e 0ou$d not 1!ve %u!rded !%!inst. 1e
ne%$i%en0e t1!t t1e petitioner !pp!rent$7 !dverts to is t1!t 0ited in *y v! +irst "etro
,ntegrated Steel Corporation ,1ere ,e e+p$!ined:
3(*4

"$unders !nd #ist!;es in t1e 0ondu0t o2 t1e pro0eedin%s in t1e tri!$ 0ourt
!s ! resu$t o2 t1e i%nor!n0e, ine+perien0e or in0o#peten0e o2 0ounse$ do not
Ku!$i27 !s ! %round 2or ne, tri!$. I2 su01 ,ere to -e !d#itted !s v!$id re!sons 2or
re-openin% 0!ses, t1ere ,ou$d never -e !n end to $iti%!tion so $on% !s ! ne,
0ounse$ 0ou$d -e e#p$o7ed to !$$e%e !nd s1o, t1!t t1e prior 0ounse$ 1!d not -een
su22i0ient$7 di$i%ent, e+perien0ed or $e!rned. 1is ,i$$ put ! pre#iu# on t1e
,i$$2u$ !nd intention!$ 0o##ission o2 errors -7 0ounse$, ,it1 ! vie, to se0urin%
ne, tri!$s in t1e event o2 0onvi0tion, or !n !dverse de0ision, !s in t1e inst!nt 0!se.

1us, ,e 2ind no Custi2i!-$e re!son to %r!nt t1e petitioner:s reKuested re#!nd.

#etitione" failed to establish the
"espondent$s ps%cholo&ical incapacit%

A petition 2or de0$!r!tion o2 nu$$it7 o2 #!rri!%e is !n01ored on
Arti0$e 9= o2 t1e F!#i$7 Code ,1i01 provides t1!t D! #!rri!%e 0ontr!0ted
-7 !n7 p!rt7 ,1o, !t t1e ti#e o2 its 0e$e-r!tion, ,!s ps701o$o%i0!$$7 in0!p!0it!ted
to 0o#p$7 ,it1 t1e essenti!$ #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions o2 #!rri!%e, s1!$$ $i;e,ise -e void
even i2 su01 in0!p!0it7 -e0o#es #!ni2est on$7 !2ter its so$e#ni@!tion.E In Santos
v! Court o$ Appeals,
39)4
t1e Court 2irst de0$!red t1!t ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 #ust
-e 01!r!0teri@ed -7 .!/ %r!vit7> .-/ Curidi0!$ !nte0eden0e> !nd .0/ in0ur!-i$it7. 1e
de2e0t s1ou$d re2er to Dno $ess t1!n ! #ent!$ .not p17si0!$/ in0!p!0it7 t1!t 0!uses !
p!rt7 to -e tru$7 in0o%nitive o2 t1e -!si0 #!rit!$ 0oven!nts t1!t 0on0o#it!nt$7 #ust
-e !ssu#ed !nd dis01!r%ed -7 t1e p!rties to t1e #!rri!%e.E It #ust -e 0on2ined to
Dt1e #ost serious 0!ses o2 person!$it7 disorders 0$e!r$7 de#onstr!tive o2 !n utter
insensitivit7 or in!-i$it7 to %ive #e!nin% !nd si%ni2i0!n0e to t1e #!rri!%e.E

He $!id do,n #ore de2initive %uide$ines in t1e interpret!tion !nd !pp$i0!tion
o2 Arti0$e 9= o2 t1e F!#i$7 Code in Republic v! Court o$ Appeals ,1ere ,e s!id:
.&/ 1e -urden o2 proo2 to s1o, t1e nu$$it7 o2 t1e #!rri!%e -e$on%s to t1e
p$!inti22. An7 dou-t s1ou$d -e reso$ved in 2!vor o2 t1e e+isten0e !nd 0ontinu!tion
o2 t1e #!rri!%e !nd !%!inst its disso$ution !nd nu$$it7. 1is is rooted in t1e 2!0t
t1!t -ot1 our Constitution !nd our $!,s 01eris1 t1e v!$idit7 o2 #!rri!%e !nd unit7
o2 t1e 2!#i$7. 1us, our Constitution devotes !n entire Arti0$e on t1e F!#i$7,
re0o%ni@in% it D!s t1e 2ound!tion o2 t1e n!tion.E It de0rees #!rri!%e !s $e%!$$7
Dinvio$!-$e,E t1ere-7 prote0tin% it 2ro# disso$ution !t t1e ,1i# o2 t1e p!rties.
"ot1 t1e 2!#i$7 !nd #!rri!%e !re to -e Dprote0tedE -7 t1e st!te.
1e F!#i$7 Code e01oes t1is 0onstitution!$ edi0t on #!rri!%e !nd t1e
2!#i$7 !nd e#p1!si@es t1eir per#!nen0e, invio$!-i$it7 !nd so$id!rit7.
.(/ 1e root 0!use o2 t1e ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 #ust -e .!/
#edi0!$$7 or 0$ini0!$$7 identi2ied, .-/ !$$e%ed in t1e 0o#p$!int, .0/
su22i0ient$7 proven -7 e+perts !nd .d/ 0$e!r$7 e+p$!ined in t1e de0ision. Arti0$e
9= o2 t1e F!#i$7 Code reKuires t1!t t1e in0!p!0it7 #ust -e ps701o$o%i0!$ - not
p17si0!$, !$t1ou%1 its #!ni2est!tions !ndJor s7#pto#s #!7 -e p17si0!$. 1e
eviden0e #ust 0onvin0e t1e 0ourt t1!t t1e p!rties, or one o2 t1e#, ,!s #ent!$$7 or
ps701i0!$$7 i$$ to su01 !n e+tent t1!t t1e person 0ou$d not 1!ve ;no,n t1e
o-$i%!tions 1e ,!s !ssu#in%, or ;no,in% t1e#, 0ou$d not 1!ve %iven v!$id
!ssu#ption t1ereo2. A$t1ou%1 no e+!#p$e o2 su01 in0!p!0it7 need -e %iven 1ere
so !s not to $i#it t1e !pp$i0!tion o2 t1e provision under t1e prin0ip$e o2 e-usdem
generis, nevert1e$ess su01 root 0!use #ust -e identi2ied !s ! ps701o$o%i0!$ i$$ness
!nd its in0!p!0it!tin% n!ture 2u$$7 e+p$!ined. E+pert eviden0e #!7 -e %iven -7
Ku!$i2ied ps701i!trists !nd 0$ini0!$ ps701o$o%ists.
.9/ 1e in0!p!0it7 #ust -e proven to -e e+istin% !t Dt1e ti#e o2 t1e
0e$e-r!tionE o2 t1e #!rri!%e. 1e eviden0e #ust s1o, t1!t t1e i$$ness ,!s
e+istin% ,1en t1e p!rties e+01!n%ed t1eir DI doLs.E 1e #!ni2est!tion o2 t1e i$$ness
need not -e per0eiv!-$e !t su01 ti#e, -ut t1e i$$ness itse$2 #ust 1!ve !tt!01ed !t
su01 #o#ent, or prior t1ereto.
.'/ Su01 in0!p!0it7 #ust !$so -e s1o,n to -e #edi0!$$7 or 0$ini0!$$7
per#!nent or in0ur!-$e. Su01 in0ur!-i$it7 #!7 -e !-so$ute or even re$!tive on$7 in
re%!rd to t1e ot1er spouse, not ne0ess!ri$7 !-so$ute$7 !%!inst ever7one o2 t1e
s!#e se+. Furt1er#ore, su01 in0!p!0it7 #ust -e re$ev!nt to t1e !ssu#ption o2
#!rri!%e o-$i%!tions, not ne0ess!ri$7 to t1ose not re$!ted to #!rri!%e, $i;e t1e
e+er0ise o2 ! pro2ession or e#p$o7#ent in ! Co-. + + +
.6/ Su01 i$$ness #ust -e %r!ve enou%1 to -rin% !-out t1e dis!-i$it7 o2 t1e
p!rt7 to !ssu#e t1e essenti!$ o-$i%!tions o2 #!rri!%e. 1us, D#i$d
01!r!0terio$o%i0!$ pe0u$i!rities, #ood 01!n%es, o00!sion!$ e#otion!$ out-urstsE
0!nnot -e !00epted !s root 0!uses. 1e i$$ness #ust -e s1o,n !s do,nri%1t
in0!p!0it7 or in!-i$it7, not ! re2us!$, ne%$e0t or di22i0u$t7, #u01 $ess i$$ ,i$$. In
ot1er ,ords, t1ere is ! n!t!$ or supervenin% dis!-$in% 2!0tor in t1e person, !n
!dverse inte%r!$ e$e#ent in t1e person!$it7 stru0ture t1!t e22e0tive$7 in0!p!0it!tes
t1e person 2ro# re!$$7 !00eptin% !nd t1ere-7 0o#p$7in% ,it1 t1e o-$i%!tions
essenti!$ to #!rri!%e.
.=/ 1e essenti!$ #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions #ust -e t1ose e#-r!0ed -7 Arti0$es
=8 up to <& o2 t1e F!#i$7 Code !s re%!rds t1e 1us-!nd !nd ,i2e !s ,e$$ !s
Arti0$es ((), ((& !nd ((6 o2 t1e s!#e Code in re%!rd to p!rents !nd t1eir
01i$dren. Su01 non-0o#p$ied #!rit!$ o-$i%!tion.s/ #ust !$so -e st!ted in t1e
petition, proven -7 eviden0e !nd in0$uded in t1e te+t o2 t1e de0ision.
.</ Interpret!tions %iven -7 t1e N!tion!$ Appe$$!te M!tri#oni!$ ri-un!$
o2 t1e C!t1o$i0 C1ur01 in t1e P1i$ippines, ,1i$e not 0ontro$$in% or de0isive,
s1ou$d -e %iven %re!t respe0t -7 our 0ourtsM
.8/ 1e tri!$ 0ourt #ust order t1e prose0utin% !ttorne7 or 2is0!$ !nd t1e
So$i0itor Aener!$ to !ppe!r !s 0ounse$ 2or t1e st!te. No de0ision s1!$$ -e 1!nded
do,n un$ess t1e So$i0itor Aener!$ issues ! 0erti2i0!tion, ,1i01 ,i$$ -e Kuoted in
t1e de0ision, -rie2$7 st!tin% t1erein 1is re!sons 2or 1is !%ree#ent or opposition, !s
t1e 0!se #!7 -e, to t1e petition. 1e So$i0itor Aener!$, !$on% ,it1 t1e prose0utin%
!ttorne7, s1!$$ su-#it to t1e 0ourt su01 0erti2i0!tion ,it1in 2i2teen .&6/ d!7s 2ro#
t1e d!te t1e 0!se is dee#ed su-#itted 2or reso$ution o2 t1e 0ourt. 1e So$i0itor
Aener!$ s1!$$ dis01!r%e t1e eKuiv!$ent 2un0tion o2 t1e de$ensor
vinculi 0onte#p$!ted under C!non &)*6.

1ese Guidelines in0orpor!te t1e -!si0 reKuire#ents ,e est!-$is1ed
in Santos! o reiter!te, ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 #ust -e 01!r!0teri@ed -7: .!/
%r!vit7> .-/ Curidi0!$ !nte0eden0e> !nd .0/ in0ur!-i$it7.
39&4
1ese reKuisites #ust -e
stri0t$7 0o#p$ied ,it1, !s t1e %r!nt o2 ! petition 2or nu$$it7 o2 #!rri!%e -!sed on
ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 #ust -e 0on2ined on$7 to t1e #ost serious 0!ses o2
person!$it7 disorders 0$e!r$7 de#onstr!tive o2 !n utter insensitivit7 or in!-i$it7 to
%ive #e!nin% !nd si%ni2i0!n0e to t1e #!rri!%e. Furt1er#ore, sin0e t1e F!#i$7
Code does not de2ine Dps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7,E 2$es1in% out its ter#s is $e2t to us
to do so on ! 0!se-to-0!se -!sis t1rou%1 Curispruden0e.
39(4
He e#p1!si@ed t1is
!ppro!01 in t1e re0ent 0!se o2 Ting v! %ele./Ting
3994
,1en ,e e+p$!ined:

It ,!s 2or t1is re!son t1!t ,e 2ound it ne0ess!r7 to e#p1!si@e in 'go
Te t1!t e!01 0!se invo$vin% t1e !pp$i0!tion o2 Arti0$e 9= #ust -e tre!ted distin0t$7
!nd Cud%ed not on t1e -!sis o2 a priori!ssu#ptions, predi$e0tions or
%ener!$i@!tions -ut !00ordin% to its o,n !ttend!nt 2!0ts. Courts s1ou$d interpret
t1e provision on ! 0!se-to-0!se -!sis, %uided -7 e+perien0e, t1e 2indin%s o2
e+perts !nd rese!r01ers in ps701o$o%i0!$ dis0ip$ines, !nd -7 de0isions o2 01ur01
tri-un!$s.

In t1e present 0!se !nd usin% t1e !-ove st!nd!rds !nd !ppro!01, ,e 2ind t1e
tot!$it7 o2 t1e petitioner:s eviden0e insu22i0ient to prove t1!t t1e respondent is
ps701o$o%i0!$$7 un2it to dis01!r%e t1e duties e+pe0ted o2 1i# !s ! 1us-!nd.

+. P"'('(o%",9# '"#'(1o%/ &(& %o' $,o-" ')" ,oo' *+4#", 6,+-('/ +%&
(%*4,+2(.('/ o0 ,"#$o%&"%'9# *o%&('(o%

1e petitioner:s eviden0e #ere$7 s1o,ed t1!t t1e respondent: .!/
rene%ed on 1is pro#ise to 0o1!-it ,it1 1er> .-/ visited 1er o00!sion!$$7 2ro# &**9
to &**<> .0/ 2or%ot 1er -irt1d!7 in &**(, !nd did not send 1er %reetin% 0!rds durin%
spe0i!$ o00!sions> .d/ represented 1i#se$2 !s sin%$e in 1is vis! !pp$i0!tion> .e/
-$!#ed 1er 2or t1e de!t1 o2 1is #ot1er> !nd .2/ to$d 1er 1e ,!s ,or;in% in D!v!o
,1en in 2!0t 1e ,!s 0o1!-itin% ,it1 !not1er ,o#!n in &**<.

1ese !0ts, in our vie,, do not rise to t1e $eve$ o2 t1e Dps701o$o%i0!$
in0!p!0it7E t1!t t1e $!, reKuires, !nd s1ou$d -e distin%uis1ed 2ro#
t1e Ddi22i0u$t7,E i2 not outri%1t Dre2us!$E or Dne%$e0tE in t1e per2or#!n0e o2 so#e
#!rit!$ o-$i%!tions t1!t 01!r!0teri@e so#e #!rri!%es. In 0ier v! 0ier,
39'4
,e ru$ed
t1!t it ,!s not enou%1 t1!t respondent, !$$e%ed to -e ps701o$o%i0!$$7 in0!p!0it!ted,
1!d di22i0u$t7 in 0o#p$7in% ,it1 1is #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions, or ,!s un,i$$in% to
per2or# t1ese o-$i%!tions. Proo2 o2 ! n!t!$ or supervenin% dis!-$in% 2!0tor I !n
!dverse inte%r!$ e$e#ent in t1e respondentLs person!$it7 stru0ture t1!t e22e0tive$7
in0!p!0it!ted 1i# 2ro# 0o#p$7in% ,it1 1is essenti!$ #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions I 1!d to -e
s1o,n !nd ,!s not s1o,n in t1is 0ited 0!se.

In t1e present 0!se, t1e respondent:s stu--orn re2us!$ to 0o1!-it ,it1 t1e
petitioner ,!s dou-t$ess$7 irresponsi-$e, -ut it ,!s never proven to -e rooted in
so#e ps701o$o%i0!$ i$$ness. As t1e petitioner:s testi#on7
reve!$s, respondent merely re$used to 0o1!-it ,it1 1er 2or 2e!r o2 Ceop!rdi@in% 1is
!pp$i0!tion 2or ! s01o$!rs1ip, !nd $!ter due to 1is 2e!r o2 !nt!%oni@in% 1is 2!#i$7.
1e respondent:s 2!i$ure to %reet t1e petitioner on 1er -irt1d!7 !nd to send 1er
0!rds durin% spe0i!$ o00!sions, !s ,e$$ !s 1is !0ts o2 -$!#in% petitioner 2or 1is
#ot1er:s de!t1 !nd o2 representin% 1i#se$2 !s sin%$e in 1is vis! !pp$i0!tion, 0ou$d
on$7 !t -est !#ount to 2or%et2u$ness, insensitivit7 or e#otion!$ i##!turit7, not
ne0ess!ri$7 ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7. Li;e,ise, t1e respondent:s !0t o2 $ivin% ,it1
!not1er ,o#!n 2our 7e!rs into t1e #!rri!%e 0!nnot !uto#!ti0!$$7 -e eKu!ted ,it1
! ps701o$o%i0!$ disorder, espe0i!$$7 ,1en no spe0i2i0 eviden0e ,!s s1o,n t1!t
pro#is0uit7 ,!s ! tr!it !$re!d7 e+istin% !t t1e in0eption o2 #!rri!%e. In 2!0t,
petitioner 1erse$2 !d#itted t1!t respondent ,!s 0!rin% !nd 2!it12u$ ,1en t1e7 ,ere
%oin% ste!d7 !nd 2or ! ti#e !2ter t1eir #!rri!%e> t1eir pro-$e#s on$7 0!#e in $!ter.

o -e sure, t1e respondent ,!s 2!r 2ro# per2e0t !nd 1!d so#e 01!r!0ter
2$!,s. 1e presen0e o2 t1ese i#per2e0tions, 1o,ever, does not ne0ess!ri$7 ,!rr!nt
! 0on0$usion t1!t 1e 1!d ! ps701o$o%i0!$ #!$!d7 !t t1e ti#e o2 t1e #!rri!%e t1!t
rendered 1i# in0!p!-$e o2 2u$2i$$in% 1is duties !nd o-$i%!tions. o use t1e ,ords
o2 'avales v! 'avales:
3964

Arti0$e 9= 0onte#p$!tes do,nri%1t in0!p!0it7 or in!-i$it7 to t!;e 0o%ni@!n0e o2 !nd
to !ssu#e -!si0 #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions. Mere Ddi22i0u$t7,E Dre2us!$E or Dne%$e0tE in t1e
per2or#!n0e o2 #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions or Di$$ ,i$$E on t1e p!rt o2 t1e spouse is di22erent 2ro#
Din0!p!0it7E rooted on so#e de-i$it!tin% ps701o$o%i0!$ 0ondition or i$$ness. I%&""&,
(,,"*o%*(.+2." &(00","%*"#, #"74+. (%0(&".('/ o, $",-",#(o%, "1o'(o%+. (11+'4,('/ +%&
(,,"#$o%#(2(.('/, +%& ')" .(:", &o %o' 2/ ')"1#".-"# 3+,,+%' + 0(%&(%6 o0 $#/*)o.o6(*+.
(%*+$+*('/ 4%&", A,'(*." 36, +# ')" #+1" 1+/ o%./ 2" &4" 'o + $",#o%<# ,"04#+. o,
4%3(..(%6%"## 'o +##41" ')" "##"%'(+. o2.(6+'(o%# o0 1+,,(+6" +%& %o' &4" 'o #o1"
$#/*)o.o6(*+. (..%"## ')+' (# *o%'"1$.+'"& 2/ #+(& ,4.".


2. D,. +/+69# $#/*)o.o6(*+. ,"$o,' +%& *o4,' '"#'(1o%/

He 0!nnot 1e$p -ut note t1!t Dr. !7!%:s 0on0$usions !-out t1e respondent:s
ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 ,ere -!sed on t1e in2or#!tion 2ed to 1er -7 on$7 one side
I t1e petitioner I ,1ose -i!s in 2!vor o2 1er 0!use 0!nnot -e dou-ted. H1i$e t1is
0ir0u#st!n0e !$one does not disKu!$i27 t1e ps701o$o%ist 2or re!sons o2 -i!s, 1er
report, testi#on7 !nd 0on0$usions deserve t1e !pp$i0!tion o2 ! #ore ri%id !nd
strin%ent set o2 st!nd!rds in t1e #!nner ,e dis0ussed !-ove.
39=4
For, e22e0tive$7, Dr.
!7!% on$7 di!%nosed t1e respondent 2ro# t1e pris# o2 ! t1ird p!rt7 !00ount> s1e
did not !0tu!$$7 1e!r, see !nd ev!$u!te t1e respondent !nd 1o, 1e ,ou$d 1!ve
re!0ted !nd responded to t1e do0tor:s pro-es.

Dr. !7!%, in 1er report, #ere$7 su##!ri@ed t1e petitioner:s n!rr!tions, !nd
on t1is -!sis 01!r!0teri@ed t1e respondent to -e ! se$2-0entered, e%o0entri0, !nd
unre#orse2u$ person ,1o D-e$ieves t1!t t1e ,or$d revo$ves !round 1i#E> !nd ,1o
Dused $ove !s !Mde0eptive t!0ti0 2or e+p$oitin% t1e 0on2iden0e 3petitioner4
e+tended to,!rds 1i#.E Dr. !7!% t1en in0orpor!ted 1er o,n ide! o2 D$oveE> #!de
! %ener!$i@!tion t1!t respondent ,!s ! person ,1o D$!0;ed 0o##it#ent,
2!it12u$ness, !nd re#orse,E !nd ,1o en%!%ed Din pro#is0uous !0ts t1!t #!de t1e
petitioner $oo; $i;e ! 2oo$E> !nd 2in!$$7 0on0$uded t1!t t1e respondent:s 01!r!0ter
tr!its reve!$ D1i# to su22er N!r0issisti0 Person!$it7 Disorder ,it1 tr!0es o2
Antiso0i!$ Person!$it7 Disorder de0$!red to -e %r!ve !nd in0ur!-$e.E

He 2ind t1ese o-serv!tions !nd 0on0$usions insu22i0ient$7 in-dept1 !nd
0o#pre1ensive to ,!rr!nt t1e 0on0$usion t1!t ! ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 e+isted
t1!t prevented t1e respondent 2ro# 0o#p$7in% ,it1 t1e essenti!$ o-$i%!tions o2
#!rri!%e. It 2!i$ed to identi27 t1e root 0!use o2 t1e respondentLs n!r0issisti0
person!$it7 disorder !nd to prove t1!t it e+isted !t t1e in0eption o2 t1e #!rri!%e.
Neit1er did it e+p$!in t1e in0!p!0it!tin% n!ture o2 t1e !$$e%ed disorder, nor s1o,
t1!t t1e respondent ,!s re!$$7 in0!p!-$e o2 2u$2i$$in% 1is duties due to so#e
in0!p!0it7 o2 ! ps701o$o%i0!$, not p17si0!$, n!ture. 1us, ,e 0!nnot !void -ut
0on0$ude t1!t Dr. !7!%:s 0on0$usion in 1er Report I i.e., t1!t t1e respondent
su22ered DN!r0issisti0 Person!$it7 Disorder ,it1 tr!0es o2 Antiso0i!$ Person!$it7
Disorder de0$!red to -e %r!ve !nd in0ur!-$eE I is !n un2ounded st!te#ent, not !
ne0ess!r7 in2eren0e 2ro# 1er previous 01!r!0teri@!tion !nd portr!7!$ o2 t1e
respondent. H1i$e t1e v!rious tests !d#inistered on t1e petitioner 0ou$d 1!ve -een
used !s ! 2!ir %!u%e to !ssess 1er o,n ps701o$o%i0!$ 0ondition, t1is s!#e st!te#ent
0!nnot -e #!de ,it1 respe0t to t1e respondent:s 0ondition. o #!;e 0on0$usions
!nd %ener!$i@!tions on t1e respondent:s ps701o$o%i0!$ 0ondition -!sed on t1e
in2or#!tion 2ed -7 on$7 one side is, to our #ind, not di22erent 2ro# !d#ittin%
1e!rs!7 eviden0e !s proo2 o2 t1e trut12u$ness o2 t1e 0ontent o2 su01 eviden0e.

Petitioner nonet1e$ess 0ontends t1!t Dr. !7!%:s su-seKuent testi#on7 in
0ourt 0ured ,1!tever de2i0ien0ies !ttended 1er ps701o$o%i0!$ report.

He do not s1!re t1is vie,.

A 0!re2u$ re!din% o2 Dr. !7!%:s testi#on7 reve!$s t1!t s1e 2!i$ed to est!-$is1
t1e 2!0t t1!t !t t1e ti#e t1e p!rties ,ere #!rried, respondent ,!s !$re!d7 su22erin%
2ro# ! ps701o$o%i0!$ de2e0t t1!t deprived 1i# o2 t1e !-i$it7 to !ssu#e t1e essenti!$
duties !nd responsi-i$ities o2 #!rri!%e. Neit1er did s1e !deKu!te$7 e+p$!in 1o, s1e
0!#e to t1e 0on0$usion t1!t respondent:s 0ondition ,!s %r!ve !nd in0ur!-$e. o
dire0t$7 Kuote 2ro# t1e re0ords:

AN. RICHARD A"AAO:

?: I ,ou$d $i;e to 0!$$ 7our !ttention to t1e Report !$re!d7 #!r;ed !s
E+1. DE-<E, t1ere is ! st!te#ent to t1e e22e0t t1!t 1is 01!r!0ter tr!its
-e%in to su22er n!r0issisti0 person!$it7 disorder ,it1 tr!0es o2
!ntiso0i!$ person!$it7 disorder. H1!t do 7ou #e!nO C!n 7ou p$e!se
e+p$!in in $!7#!n:s ,ord, M!d!# HitnessO

DR. NEDN LORENZO ANAA:

A: A0tu!$$7, in ! $!7#!n:s ter#, n!r0issisti0 person!$it7 disorder
0!nnot !00ept t1!t t1ere is so#et1in% ,ron% ,it1 1is o,n
-e1!vior!$ #!ni2est!tion. 3sic4 1e7 2ee$ t1!t t1e7 0!n ru$e t1e
,or$d> t1e7 !re e00entri0> t1e7 !re e+e#p$!r7, de#!ndin% 2in!n0i!$
!nd e#otion!$ support, !nd t1is is 0$e!r$7 #!ni2ested -7 t1e 2!0t
t1!t respondent !-used !nd used petitioner:s $ove. A$on% t1e $ine, !
n!r0issisti0 person 0!nnot %ive e#p!t17> 0!nnot %ive $ove si#p$7
-e0!use t1e7 $ove t1e#se$ves #ore t1!n !n7-od7 e$se> !nd t1ird$7,
n!r0issisti0 person 0!nnot support 1is o,n person!$ need !nd
%r!ti2i0!tion ,it1out t1e 1e$p o2 ot1ers !nd t1is is ,1ere t1e
petitioner set in.

?: C!n 7ou p$e!se des0ri-e t1e person!$ 3sic4 disorderO

A: C$ini0!$$7, 0onsiderin% t1!t $!-e$, t1e respondent -e1!vior!$
#!ni2est!tion under person!$it7 disorder 3sic4 t1is is !$re!d7
0onsidered %r!ve, serious, !nd tre!t#ent ,i$$ -e i#possi-$e 3sic4.
As I s!7 t1is, ! ;ind o2 deve$op#ent!$ disorder ,1erein it !$$
st!rted durin% t1e e!r$7 2or#!tive 7e!rs !nd -rou%1t !-out -7 one
2!#i$i!r re$!tions1ip t1e ,!7 1e ,!s re!red !nd 0!red -7 t1e
2!#i$7. Environ#ent!$ e+posure is !$so p!rt !nd p!r0e$ o2 t1e 01i$d
disorder. 3sic4

?: Nou #e!n to s!7, 2ro# t1e 2or#!tive 37e!rs4 up to t1e presentO

A: A0tu!$$7, t1e respondent -e1!vior!$ #!nner ,!s 3present4 $on%
-e2ore 1e entered #!rri!%e. 3Gn42ortun!te$7, on t1e p!rt o2 t1e
petitioner, s1e never re!$i@ed t1!t su01 -e1!vior!$ #!ni2est!tion o2
t1e respondent 0onnotes p!t1o$o%7. 3sic4

+ + + +

?: So in t1e represent!tion o2 t1e petitioner t1!t t1e respondent is no,
$7in% 3sic4 ,it1 so#e-od7 e$se, 1o, ,i$$ 7ou des0ri-e t1e
01!r!0ter o2 t1is respondent ,1o is $ivin% ,it1 so#e-od7 e$seO

A: 1is is ,1ere t1e !ntiso0i!$ person!$it7 tr!it o2 t1e respondent 3sic4
-e0!use !n !ntiso0i!$ person is one ,1o indu$%e in p1i$!nderin%
!0tivities, ,1o do not 1!ve !n7 2ee$in% o2 %ui$t !t t1e e+pense o2
!not1er person, !nd t1is 3is4 !%!in ! -u7-produ0t o2 deep se!ted
ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7.

?: And t1is ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 -!sed on t1is p!rti0u$!r deep
se!ted 3sic4, 1o, ,ou$d 7ou des0ri-e t1e ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7O
3sic4

A: As I s!id t1ere is ! deep se!ted ps701o$o%i0!$ di$e##!, so I ,ou$d
s!7 in0ur!-$e in n!ture !nd !t t1is ti#e !nd !%!in 3sic4 t1e
ps701o$o%i0!$ p!t1o$o%7 o2 t1e respondent. One p$!7s ! #!Cor
2!0tor o2 not -ein% !-$e to %ive #e!nin% to ! re$!tions1ip in ter#s
o2 sin0erit7 !nd endur!n0e.

?: And i2 t1is ps701o$o%i0!$ disorder e+ists -e2ore t1e #!rri!%e o2 t1e
respondent !nd t1e petitioner, M!d!# HitnessO

A: C$ini0!$$7, !n7 disorder !re usu!$$7 rooted 2ro# t1e e!r$7 2or#!tive
7e!rs !nd so i2 it t!;es enou%1 t1!t su01 ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7
o2 respondent !$re!d7 e+isted $on% -e2ore 1e entered #!rri!%e,
-e0!use i2 7ou !n!$7@e 1o, 1e ,!s re!red -7 1er p!rents
p!rti0u$!r$7 -7 t1e #ot1er, t1ere is !$re!d7 !n un1e!$t17 s7#-iosis
deve$oped -et,een t1e t,o, !nd t1is 0re!tes ! #!Cor e#otion!$
1!vo0 ,1en 1e re!01ed !du$t !%e.

?: Ho, !-out t1e %r!vit7O

A: 1is is !$re!d7 %r!ve si#p$7 -e0!use 2ro# t1e ver7 st!rt
respondent never 1!d !n in;$in% t1!t 1is -e1!vior!$ #!ni2est!tion
0onnotes p!t1o$o%7 !nd se0ond %round 3sic4, respondent ,i$$ never
!d#it !%!in t1!t su01 -e1!vior o2 1is 0onnotes !%!in p!t1o$o%7
si#p$7 -e0!use t1e disorder o2 t1e respondent is not detri#ent!$ to
1i#se$2 -ut, #ore o2ten t1!n not, it is detri#ent!$ to ot1er p!rt7
invo$ved.

+ + + +

PROSECGOR MELBIN IONASON:

?: Nou ,ere not !-$e to person!$$7 e+!#ine t1e respondent 1ereO

DR. NEDN ANAA:

A: E22orts ,ere #!de -7 t1e ps701o$o%ist -ut un2ortun!te$7, t1e
respondent never !ppe!red !t #7 0$ini0.

?: On t1e -!sis o2 t1ose e+!#in!tions 0ondu0ted ,it1 t1e petitionin%
,i2e to !nnu$ t1eir #!rri!%e ,it1 1er 1us-!nd in %ener!$, ,1!t 0!n
7ou s!7 !-out t1e respondentO

A: 1!t 2ro# t1e ver7 st!rt respondent 1!s no e#otion!$ intent to %ive
#e!nin% to t1eir re$!tions1ip. I2 7ou !n!$7@e t1eir #!rit!$
re$!tions1ip t1e7 never $ived under one roo#. Fro# t1e ver7 st!rt
o2 t1e 3#!rri!%e4, t1e respondent to 1!ve petitioner to en%!%e in
se0ret #!rri!%e unti$ t1!t ti#e t1eir 2!#i$7 ;ne, o2 t1eir #!rri!%e
3sic4. Respondent 0o#p$ete$7 re2used, 0o#p$ete$7 re$inKuis1ed 1is
#!rit!$ o-$i%!tion to t1e petitioner.

+ + + +


COGR:

?: "e0!use 7ou 1!ve intervie,ed or 7ou 1!ve Kuestioned t1e
petitioner, 0!n 7ou re!$$7 enu#er!te t1e spe0i2i0 tr!its o2 t1e
respondentO

DR. NEDN ANAA:

A: One is t1e 1!pp7-%o-$u0;7 !ttitude o2 t1e respondent !nd t1e
dependent !ttitude o2 t1e respondent.

?: Even i2 1e is !$re!d7 e$i%i-$e 2or e#p$o7#entO

A: He re#!ins to -e !t t1e #er07 o2 1is #ot1er. He is ! 1!pp7-%o-
$u0;7 si#p$7 -e0!use 1e never 1!d ! set o2 responsi-i$it7. I t1in;
t1!t 1e 2inis1ed 1is edu0!tion -ut 1e never 1!d ! st!-$e Co- -e0!use
1e 0o#p$ete$7 re$ied on t1e support o2 1is #ot1er.

?: Nou %ive ! #ore t1orou%1 intervie, so I !# !s;in% 7ou so#et1in%
spe0i2i0O

A: 1e 1!pp7-%o-$u0;7 !ttitude> t1e over$7 dependent !ttitude on t1e
p!rt o2 t1e #ot1er #ere$7 -e0!use respondent 1!ppened to -e t1e
on$7 son. I s!id t1!t t1ere is ! un1e!$t17 s7#-iosis re$!tions1ip
3sic4 deve$oped -et,een t1e son !nd t1e #ot1er si#p$7 -e0!use t1e
#ot1er !$,!7s p!#pered 0o#p$ete$7, p!#pered to t1e point t1!t
respondent 2!i$ed to deve$op 1is o,n sense o2 !ssertion or
responsi-i$it7 p!rti0u$!r$7 durin% t1!t st!%e !nd t1ere is !$so
presen0e o2 t1e si#p$e $7in% !0t p!rti0u$!r$7 1is responsi-i$it7 in
ter#s o2 1!nd$in% e#otion!$ i#-!$!n0e !nd it is 0$e!r$7 #!ni2ested
-7 t1e 2!0t t1!t respondent re2used to -ui$d ! 1o#e to%et1er ,it1
t1e petitioner ,1en in 2!0t t1e7 !re $e%!$$7 #!rried. 1ird$7,
respondent never 2e$t or 0o#p$ete$7 i%nored t1e 2ee$in%s o2 t1e
petitioner> 1e never 2e$t %ui$t7 1urtin% t1e petitioner -e0!use on t1e
p!rt o2 t1e petitioner, ;no,in% t1!t respondent indu$%e ,it1
!not1er ,o#!n it is ver7, ver7 tr!u#!ti0 on 1er p!rt 7et respondent
never 1!d t1e %uts to 2ee$ %ui$t7 or to !tone s!id !0t 1e 0o##itted
in t1eir re$!tions1ip, !nd 0$ini0!$$7 t1is 2!$$s under !ntiso0i!$
person!$it7.
39<4

In ter#s o2 in0ur!-i$it7, Dr. !7!%:s !ns,er ,!s ver7 v!%ue !nd in0on0$usive, t1us:
+ + + +

AN. RICHARD A"AAO

?: C!n t1is person!$$7 -e 0ured, #!d!# ,itnessO

DR. NEDN ANAA

A: C$ini0!$$7, i2 persons su22erin% 2ro# person!$it7 disorder 0ur!-$e,
up to t1is ver7 #o#ent, no s0ienti2i0 0ou$d -e up1e$d to !$$evi!te
t1eir ;ind o2 person!$it7 disorder> Se0ond$7, !%!in respondent or
ot1er person su22erin% 2ro# !n7 ;ind o2 disorder p!rti0u$!r$7
n!r0issisti0 person!$it7 ,i$$ never !d#it t1!t t1e7 !re su22erin%
2ro# t1is ;ind o2 disorder, !nd t1en !%!in *4,+2(.('/ 3(.. +.3+/#
2" + ;4"#'(o%. 3sic4
3984


1is testi#on7 s1o,s t1!t ,1i$e Dr. !7!% initi!$$7 des0ri-ed t1e %ener!$
01!r!0teristi0s o2 ! person su22erin% 2ro# ! n!r0issisti0 person!$it7 disorder, s1e did
not re!$$7 s1o, 1o, !nd to ,1!t e+tent t1e respondent e+1i-ited t1ese tr!its. S1e
#entioned t1e -u@@ ,ords t1!t Curispruden0e reKuires 2or t1e nu$$it7 o2 ! #!rri!%e
I n!#e$7, %r!vit7, in0ur!-i$it7, e+isten0e !t t1e ti#e o2 t1e #!rri!%e, ps701o$o%i0!$
in0!p!0it7 re$!tin% to #!rri!%e I !nd in 1er o,n $i#ited ,!7, re$!ted t1ese to t1e
#edi0!$ 0ondition s1e %ener!$$7 des0ri-ed. 1e testi#on7, to%et1er ,it1 1er
report, 1o,ever, su22ers 2ro# ver7 -!si0 2$!,s.

+irst, ,1!t s1e #edi0!$$7 des0ri-ed ,!s not re$!ted or $in;ed to t1e
respondent:s e+!0t 0ondition e+0ept in ! ver7 %ener!$ ,!7. In s1ort, 1er testi#on7
!nd report ,ere ri01 in %ener!$ities -ut dis!strous$7 s1ort on p!rti0u$!rs, #ost
not!-$7 on 1o, t1e respondent 0!n -e s!id to -e su22erin% 2ro# n!r0issisti0
person!$it7 disorder> ,17 !nd to ,1!t e+tent t1e disorder is %r!ve !nd in0ur!-$e>
1o, !nd ,17 it ,!s !$re!d7 present !t t1e ti#e o2 t1e #!rri!%e> !nd t1e e22e0ts o2
t1e disorder on t1e respondent:s !,!reness o2 !nd 1is 0!p!-i$it7 to undert!;e t1e
duties !nd responsi-i$ities o2 #!rri!%e. A$$ t1ese !re 0riti0!$ to t1e su00ess o2 t1e
petitioner:s 0!se.

Second, 1er testi#on7 ,!s s1ort on 2!0tu!$ -!sis 2or 1er di!%nosis -e0!use it
,!s ,1o$$7 -!sed on ,1!t t1e petitioner re$!ted to 1er. As t1e do0tor !d#itted to
t1e prose0utor, s1e did not !t !$$ e+!#ine t1e respondent, on$7 t1e
petitioner. Neit1er t1e $!, nor Curispruden0e reKuires, o2 0ourse, t1!t t1e person
sou%1t to -e de0$!red ps701o$o%i0!$$7 in0!p!0it!ted s1ou$d -e person!$$7 e+!#ined
-7 ! p17si0i!n or ps701o$o%ist !s ! 0ondition sine #ua non to !rrive !t su01
de0$!r!tion.
39*4
I2 ! ps701o$o%i0!$ disorder 0!n -e proven -7 independent #e!ns, no
re!son e+ists ,17 su01 independent proo2 0!nnot -e !d#itted !nd %iven 0redit.
3')4
No su01 independent eviden0e, 1o,ever, !ppe!rs on re0ord to 1!ve -een
%!t1ered in t1is 0!se, p!rti0u$!r$7 !-out t1e respondent:s e!r$7 $i2e !nd !sso0i!tions,
!nd !-out events on or !-out t1e ti#e o2 t1e #!rri!%e !nd i##edi!te$7
t1ere!2ter. 1us, t1e testi#on7 !nd report !ppe!r to us to -e no #ore t1!n !
di!%nosis t1!t revo$ves !round t1e one-sided !nd #e!%er 2!0ts t1!t t1e petitioner
re$!ted, !nd ,ere !$$ s$!nted to support t1e 0on0$usion t1!t ! %round e+ists to Custi27
t1e nu$$i2i0!tion o2 t1e #!rri!%e. He s!7 t1is -e0!use on$7 t1e -!ser Ku!$ities o2 t1e
respondent:s $i2e ,ere e+!#ined !nd %iven 2o0us> none o2 t1ese Ku!$ities ,ere
,ei%1ed !nd -!$!n0ed ,it1 t1e -etter Ku!$ities, su01 !s 1is 2o0us on 1!vin% ! Co-,
1is deter#in!tion to i#prove 1i#se$2 t1rou%1 studies, 1is 0!re !nd !ttention in t1e
2irst si+ #ont1s o2 t1e #!rri!%e, !#on% ot1ers. 1e eviden0e 2!i$s to #ention !$so
,1!t 01!r!0ter !nd Ku!$ities t1e petitioner -rou%1t into 1er #!rri!%e, 2or e+!#p$e,
,17 t1e respondent:s 2!#i$7 opposed t1e #!rri!%e !nd ,1!t events $ed t1e
respondent to -$!#e t1e petitioner 2or t1e de!t1 o2 1is #ot1er, i2 t1is !$$e%!tion is !t
!$$ 0orre0t. o -e sure, t1ese !re i#port!nt -e0!use not ! 2e, #!rri!%es 1!ve
2!i$ed, not -e0!use o2 ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7 o2 eit1er or -ot1 o2 t1e spouses, -ut
-e0!use o2 -!si0 in0o#p!ti-i$ities !nd #!rit!$ deve$op#ents t1!t do not !#ount to
ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7. 1e 0ontinued sep!r!tion o2 t1e spouses $i;e,ise never
!ppe!red to 1!ve -een 2!0tored in. Not ! 2e, #!rried 0oup$es 1!ve $i;e,ise
per#!nent$7 sep!r!ted si#p$7 -e0!use t1e7 1!ve D2!$$en out o2 $ove,E or 1!ve
out%ro,n t1e !ttr!0tion t1!t dre, t1e# to%et1er in t1eir 7oun%er 7e!rs.

1us, on t1e ,1o$e, ,e do not -$!#e t1e petitioner 2or t1e #ove to se0ure !
re#!nd o2 t1is 0!se to t1e tri!$ 0ourts 2or t1e introdu0tion o2 !ddition!$ eviden0e>
t1e petitioner:s eviden0e in its present st!te is ,oe2u$$7 insu22i0ient to support t1e
0on0$usion t1!t t1e petitioner:s #!rri!%e to t1e respondent s1ou$d -e nu$$i2ied on
t1e %round o2 t1e respondent:s ps701o$o%i0!$ in0!p!0it7.

1e Court 0o##iser!tes ,it1 t1e petitioner:s #!rit!$ predi0!#ent. 1e
respondent #!7 indeed -e un,i$$in% to dis01!r%e 1is #!rit!$ o-$i%!tions,
p!rti0u$!r$7 t1e o-$i%!tion to $ive ,it1 one:s spouse. Nonet1e$ess, ,e 0!nnot
presu#e ps701o$o%i0!$ de2e0t 2ro# t1e #ere 2!0t t1!t respondent re2uses to 0o#p$7
,it1 1is #!rit!$ duties. As ,e ru$ed in "olina,(' (# %o' "%o46) 'o $,o-" ')+' +
#$o4#" 0+(."& 'o 1""' )(# ,"#$o%#(2(.('/ +%& &4'/ +# + 1+,,("& $",#o%= (' (#
"##"%'(+. ')+' )" 14#' 2" #)o3% 'o 2" (%*+$+2." o0 &o(%6 #o &4" 'o #o1"
$#/*)o.o6(*+. (..%"##. )" $#/*)o.o6(*+. (..%"## ')+' 14#' +00.(*' + $+,'/ +' ')"
(%*"$'(o% o0 ')" 1+,,(+6" #)o4.& 2" + 1+.+&/ #o 6,+-" +%& $",1+%"%' +# 'o
&"$,(-" ')" $+,'/ o0 )(# o, )", +3+,"%"## o0 ')" &4'("# +%& ,"#$o%#(2(.('("# o0
')" 1+',(1o%(+. 2o%& )" o, #)" 3+# ')"% +2o4' 'o +##41".
3'&4

W5ERE!ORE, in vie, o2 t1ese 0onsider!tions, ,e DEN> t1e petition
!nd A!!IRM t1e de0ision !nd reso$ution o2 t1e Court o2 Appe!$s d!ted 5une (6,
())' !nd5!nu!r7 &8, ())6, respe0tive$7, in CA-A.R. CB No. <6)*6.

2epublic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 1321;4 O)*o5'r 19, 2004
C!#!L SER#!CE COMM!SS!ON, petitione",
vs.
"LL<SON $EL"G"N, "espondent.
D E C I S I O N
S"N8O#"L4GUT!ERRE=, J%&
)hen the c"edibilit# of a 'itness is souht to be impeached b# p"oof of his "eputation, it is necessa"#
that the "eputation sho'n should be that 'hich e,isted befo"e the occu""ence of the ci"cumstances
out of 'hich the litiation a"ose,
/
o" at the time of the t"ial and p"io" the"eto, but not at a pe"iod
"emote f"om the commencement of the suit.
6
-his is because a pe"son of de"oato"# cha"acte" o"
"eputation can still chane o" "efo"m himself.
5o" ou" "esolution is the petition fo" "evie' on certiorari of the Cou"t of AppealsT Decision
1
dated
Fanua"# 8, /..8, in CA%:.2. SP. No. >>/80, the dispositive po"tion of 'hich "eads;
&7EREFORE, 2esolution No. .996/1 dated Septembe" 61, /..9 and 2esolution No.
.?6>61 dated Ap"il //, /..? of the "espondent Civil Se"vice Commission a"e he"eb# set
aside. -he complaint aainst petitione" All#son Belaan filed b# Madalena :apu@ is
he"eb# 8!SM!SSE8.
-he dismissal of petitione" Belaan is lifted and he is he"eb# o"de"ed to be immediatel#
"einstated to his position 'ithout loss of senio"it#, "eti"ement, bac!'aes and othe" "ihts and
benefits.
SO OR8ERE8.&
-he instant case stemmed f"om t'o (6* sepa"ate complaints filed "espectivel# b# Madalena :apu@,
founde"Edi"ect"ess of the &Mothe" and Child 4ea"nin Cente",& and 4ia#a Anna'i, a public school
teache" at 5o"t Del Pila" Elementa"# School, aainst "espondent D". All#son Belaan,
Supe"intendent of the Depa"tment of Education, Cultu"e and Spo"ts (DECS*, all f"om Bauio Cit#.
Madalena cha"ed "espondent 'ith se,ual indinities and ha"assment, 'hile 4ia#a accused him
of se,ual ha"assment and va"ious malfeasances.
MadalenaTs s'o"n complaint allees that sometime in Ma"ch /..>, she filed an application 'ith the
DECS Office in Bauio Cit# fo" a pe"mit to ope"ate a p"e%school. One of the "e$uisites fo" the
issuance of the pe"mit 'as the inspection of the school p"emises b# the DECS Division Office. Since
the office" assined to conduct the inspection 'as not p"esent, "espondent voluntee"ed his se"vices.
Sometime in Fune /..>, "espondent and complainant visited the school. In the cou"se of the
inspection, 'hile both 'e"e descendin the stai"s of the second floo", "espondent suddenl# placed
his a"ms a"ound he" shoulde"s and !issed he" chee!. Dumbfounded, she mutte"ed, &Si", is this pa"t
of the inspectionG Pati ba naman !a#o sa DECS 'ala n valuesG& 2espondent me"el# sheepishl#
smiled. At that time, the"e 'e"e no othe" people in the a"ea.
5ea"ful that he" application miht be Aeopa"di@ed and that he" husband miht ha"m "espondent,
Madalena Aust !ept $uiet.
Seve"al da#s late", Madalena 'ent to the DECS Division Office and as!ed "espondent, &Si",
!umusta #un application !oG& <is "epl# 'as &Ma%date muna ta#o.& She declined, e,plainin that
she is ma""ied. She then left and "epo"ted the matte" to DECS Assistant Supe"intendent Pete"
Nabit.
Madalena neve" "etu"ned to the DECS Division Office to follo' up he" application. <o'eve", she
'as fo"ced to "eveal the incidents to he" husband 'hen he as!ed 'h# the pe"mit has not #et been
"eleased. -he"eupon, the# 'ent to the office of the "espondent. <e me"el# denied havin a pe"sonal
"elationship 'ith Madalena.
-he"eafte", "espondent fo"'a"ded to the DECS 2eional Di"ecto" his "ecommendation to app"ove
MadalenaTs application fo" a pe"mit to ope"ate a p"e%school.
Sometime in Septembe" /..>, Madalena "ead f"om a local ne'spape" that ce"tain female
emplo#ees of the DECS in Bauio Cit# 'e"e cha"in a hih%"an!in DECS official 'ith se,ual
ha"assment. +pon in$ui"#, she lea"ned that the official bein complained of 'as "espondent. She
then '"ote a lette"%complaint fo" se,ual indinities and ha"assment to fo"me" DECS Sec"eta"#
2ica"do :lo"ia.
On Octobe" >, /..>, "espondent 'as placed unde" suspension.
On the pa"t of 4ia#a Anna'i, she alleed in he" complaint that on fou" sepa"ate occasions,
"espondent touched he" b"easts, !issed he" chee!, touched he" "oins, emb"aced he" f"om behind
and pulled he" close to him, his o"an p"essin the lo'e" pa"t of he" bac!.
4ia#a also cha"ed "espondent 'ith; >1? dela#in the pa#ment of the teache"sT sala"iesJ >2? failin to
"elease the pa# diffe"entials of substitute teache"sJ >3? 'illfull# "efusin to "elease the teache"sT
unifo"ms, p"opo"tionate allo'ances and p"oductivit# pa#J and >4? failin to constitute the Selection
and P"omotion Boa"d, as "e$ui"ed b# the DECS "ules and "eulations.
-he DECS conducted a Aoint investiation of the complaints of Madalena and 4ia#a. In his
defense, "espondent denied thei" cha"e of se,ual ha"assment. <o'eve", he p"esented evidence to
disp"ove 4ia#aTs imputation of de"eliction of dut#.
On Fanua"# ., /..7, the DECS Sec"eta"# "ende"ed a Foint Decision
>
findin "espondent uilt# of fou"
(>* counts of se,ual &indinities o" ha"assments& committed aainst 4ia#aJ and t'o (6* counts of
&se,ual advances o" indinities& aainst Madalena. <e 'as o"de"ed dismissed f"om the se"vice.
-he dispositive po"tion of the Foint Decision "eads;
&)<E2E5O2E, fo"eoin dis$uisitions dul# conside"ed, decision is he"eb# "ende"ed in the
t'o above%entitled cases, findin;
a* 2espondent D". All#son Belaan, Supe"intendent of the DECS Bauio Cit#
Schools Division :+I4-= of the fou" counts of se,ual indinities o" ha"assments
committed aainst the pe"son and hono" of complainant Miss 4ia#a Anna'i, a
Bauio Cit# public school teache", 'hile in the pe"fo"mance of his official duties and
ta!in advantae of his office. <e is, ho'eve", ABSO4HED of all the othe" cha"es of
administ"ative malfeasance o" de"eliction of dut#.
b* 2espondent Bauio Cit# Supe"intendent All#son Belaan li!e'ise :+I4-= of the
t'o counts of se,ual advances o" indinities committed aainst the pe"son and hono"
of complainant M"s. Madalena :apu@, a p"ivate school teache" of Bauio Cit#, 'hile
in the pe"fo"mance of his official duties and ta!in advantae of his office.
Conse$uentl#, "espondent All#son Belaan is <E2EB= O2DE2ED DISMISSED f"om the
ove"nment se"vice, 'ith p"eAudice to "einstatement and all his "eti"ement benefits and othe"
"emune"ations due him a"e <E2EB= DEC4A2ED 5O25EI-ED in favo" of the ove"nment.
SO O2DE2ED.&
7
+pon appeal, the Civil Se"vice Commission (CSC*, on Septembe" 61, /..9, p"omulated 2esolution
No. .996/1
9
affi"min the Decision of the DECS Sec"eta"# in the case filed b# Madalena but
dismissin the complaint of 4ia#a. -he CSC "uled that "espondentTs t"ans"ession aainst
Madalena constitutes "ave misconduct. -hus;
&-he acts of Belaan a"e se"ious b"each of ood conduct since he 'as holdin a position
'hich "e$ui"es the incumbent the"eof to maintain a hih de"ee of mo"al up"ihtness. As
Division Supe"intendent, Belaan "ep"esents an institution tas!ed to mold the cha"acte" of
child"en. 5u"the"mo"e, one of his duties is to ensu"e that teache"s in his division conduct
themselves p"ope"l# and obse"ve the p"ope" discipline. An# imp"ope" behavio" on his pa"t
'ill se"iousl# impai" his mo"al ascendanc# ove" the teache"s and students 'hich can not be
tole"ated. T&'r'2or', &/( ./()on-u)* *o@ar-( an a++,/)an* 2or a +'r./* *o o+'ra*' a
+r/Aa*' +r'4()&oo, )anno* 5' *r'a*'- ,/1&*,y an- )on(*/*u*'( *&' o22'n(' o2 1raA'
./()on-u)*.
7EREFORE, "espondent All#son Belaan is he"eb# found uilt# of 1raA' ./()on-u)* and
imposed the penalt# of 8!SM!SS"L f"om the se"vice 'ith all the accesso"# penalties. -he
decision of the DECS Sec"eta"# is modified acco"dinl#.&
?
On Octobe" 6., /..9, "espondent seasonabl# filed a motion fo" "econside"ation, contendin that he
has neve" been cha"ed of an# offense in his thi"t#%seven (1?* #ea"s of se"vice. B# cont"ast,
Madalena 'as cha"ed 'ith seve"al offenses befo"e the Municipal -"ial Cou"t (M-C* of Bauio Cit#,
thus;
&/. C"iminal Case No. >1>/9 fo" 4I:<- O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Decembe" 1, /.80*
6. C"iminal Case No. >796. fo" S4I:<- P<=SICA4 INF+2IES (Ma# /1, /.86*
1. C"iminal Case No. >7910 fo" :2AHE -<2EA-S (Ma# /1, /.86*
>. C"iminal Case No. >7./> fo" :2AHE -<2EA-S (Fune 6>, /.86*
7. C"iminal Case No. 7/716 fo" MA4ICIO+S MISC<IE5 (Fanua"# 67, /.87*
9. C"iminal Case No. 7/711 fo" 4I:<- -<2EA-S (Fanua"# 67, /.87*
?. C"iminal Case No. 7/779 fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Fanua"# 10, /.87*
8. C"iminal Case No. 7/8/8 fo" 4I:<- O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Ma"ch /8, /.87*
.. C"iminal Case No. 7/8/. fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Ma"ch /8, /.87*
/0. C"iminal Case No. 7/860 fo" MA4ICIO+S MISC<IE5 (Ma"ch /8, /.87*
//. C"iminal Case No. 7/86/ fo" +NF+S- HEUA-ION (Ma"ch /8, /.87*
/6. C"iminal Case No. 96/?1 fo" +NF+S- HEUA-ION (Ma# 6., /../*
/1. C"iminal Case No. 96/?6 fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (May 29, 1991*
/>. C"iminal Case No. 96?7> fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Decembe" 6, /.89*
/7. C"iminal Case No. 779>6 fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Decembe" 6, /.89*
/9. C"iminal Case No. 77>61 fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Octobe" 6>, /.89*
/?. C"iminal Case No. 778>9 fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Novembe" >, /.89*
/8. C"iminal Case No. 77800 fo" :2AHE O2A4 DE5AMA-ION (Fanua"# ?, /.8?*
/.. C"iminal Case No. 7?1/6 fo" +NF+S- HEUA-ION (Novembe" 6., /.8?*
60. C"iminal Case No. 779>1 fo" S4I:<- P<=SICA4 INF+2IES (Decembe" /1, /.87*
6/. C"iminal Case No. 71>0> fo" +NF+S- HEUA-ION (Decembe" /1, /.87*
66. C"iminal Case No. 77>66 fo" +NF+S- HEUA-ION (Octobe" 6>, /.89*&
8
In addition, the follo'in complaints aainst Madalena 'e"e filed 'ith the Ba"ana# Chai"men of
Ba"ana# :ab"iela Silan and Ba"ana# <illside, both in Bauio Cit#;
&/. O"dana vs. :apu@ (B"#. Case No. //%/.%06%A* fo" :2AHE -<2EA-S, +NF+S-
HEUA-ION, 2+MO2 MON:E2IN:
6. -e"esita De 4os Santos vs. :apu@ (B"#. Case No. 89%8%69%8* fo" :2AHE -<2EA-S D
O2A4 DE5AMA-ION
1. M"s. Conchita Balleste"os vs. :apu@ (B"#. Case No. 06.* fo" O2A4 DE5AMA-ION and
5A4SE ACC+SA-ION
>. M"s. Cla"a Baoas vs. :apu@ (B"#. Case No. 010* fo" <A2ASSMEN- and -<2EA-S
7. :AB2IE4A SI4AN: -ANOD 5O2CES vs. :apu@ (Case No. 01/* fo" <ABI-+A4
-2O+B4E MAPE2
9. Pablo O"ti@ vs. :apu@ (Novembe" /, /.?.* fo" O2A4 DE5AMA-ION
?. C. Balleste"os vs. :apu@ (Septembe" //, /.?8* fo" O2A4 DE5AMA-ION
8. M"s. 4i@a Ancheta vs. :apu@ (Septembe" 6?, /.?8* fo" 2+MO2 MON:E2IN:
.. M". Pananin (Beneco Pe"sonnel* (Octobe" 8, /.?8* fo" O2A4 DE5AMA-ION
/0. M"s. Minda Halde@ vs. :apu@ (Novembe" 9, /.?8* fo" O2A4 DE5AMA-ION
//. )OMENTS C4+B vs. :AP+M (5eb"ua"# ., /.?.* fo" O2A4 DE5AMA-ION
/6. Hist"o Salcedo case (Ma# 8, /.?.*
)he"e M"s. :apu@ 'as sp"eadin "umo"s aainst Ba"ana# Captain and Police Chief
/1. Demolition Scandal (Ma# /0, /.?.*
)he"e she called all the "esidents of thei" Ba"ana# fo" an eme"enc# meetin and
'he"e she shouted invectives aainst the "esidents
/>. Incident of Fune /1, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ shouted invectives aainst the Ba"ana# Sanita"# Inspecto"
/7. Incident of Auust 67, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ shouted invectives aainst the se"vants of M". De 4eon
/9. Incident of Auust 69, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ te""o"i@ed the council meetin
/?. Incident of Septembe" 6, /.?8
M"s. Cla"a Baoas 'as ha"assed b# M"s. :apu@
/8. Incident of Septembe" ., /.?.
M"s. :apu@ $ua""eled 'ith M"s. C. Balleste"os du"in the council meetin
/.. Incident of Septembe" /0, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ 'as hu"lin invectives alon he" alle# in the ea"l# mo"nin
60. Incident of Septembe" /1, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ tapped elect"ic 'i"e f"om M"s. -essie de los Santos 'ith the latte"Ts consent
6/. Incident of Septembe" 6/, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ 'as shoutin and hu"lin invectives scandalousl# a"ound he" "esidence
66. Incident of Septembe" 6/, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ 'as shoutin, complainin about alleed poisoned sa"dines nea" the
p"emises of he" "esidence 'hich !illed he" hen.
61. Incident of Septembe" 61, /.?.
M"s. :apu@ 'as shoutin unpleasant 'o"ds a"ound the neihbo"hood. She did not li!e
the actuations of a ba#anihan "oup nea" the 'aitin shed.&
.
2espondent claimed that the nume"ous cases filed aainst Madalena cast doubt on he" cha"acte",
inte"it#, and c"edibilit#.
In its 2esolution No. .?6>61
/0
dated Ap"il //, /..?, the CSC denied "espondentTs motion fo"
"econside"ation, holdin that;
&-he cha"acte" of a 'oman 'ho 'as the subAect of a se,ual assault is of mino" sinificance
in the dete"mination of the uilt o" innocence of the pe"son accused of havin committed the
offense. -his is so because even a p"ostitute o" a 'oman of ill "epute ma# become a victim
of said offense.
As such, the fact that complainant Madalena :apu@ is sho'n to have had cases befo"e the
"eula" cou"ts fo" va"ious offenses and 'as condemned b# he" communit# fo" '"onful
behavio" does not discount the possibilit# that she 'as in fact tellin the t"uth 'hen she c"ied
about the leche"ous advances made to he" b# the "espondent. , , ,&
2espondent then filed 'ith the Cou"t of Appeals a petition fo" "evie'. As stated ea"lie", it "eve"sed
the CSC 2esolutions and dismissed MadalenaTs complaint.
-he Appellate Cou"t held that Madalena is an un"eliable 'itness, he" cha"acte" bein $uestionable.
:iven he" a"essiveness and p"opensit# fo" t"ouble, &she is not one 'hom an# male 'ould attempt
to steal a !iss.& In fact, he" &"eco"d immediatel# "aises an ala"m in an# one 'ho ma# c"oss he"
path.&
//
In absolvin "espondent f"om the cha"es, the Appellate Cou"t conside"ed his &unblemished&
se"vice "eco"d fo" 1? #ea"s.
+nsatisfied, the CSC, th"ouh the Solicito" :ene"al, filed the instant petition "aisin the follo'in
assinments of e""o";
&I. -he Sup"eme Cou"t ma# "ule on factual issues "aised on appeal 'he"e the Cou"t of
Appeals misapp"eciated the facts. 5u"the"mo"e, 'he"e the findins of the Cou"t of Appeals
and the t"ial cou"t a"e cont"a"# to each othe", the Sup"eme Cou"t ma# "evie' the "eco"d and
evidence. -he Cou"t of Appeals e""ed in not ivin c"edence to the testimon# of complainant
Madalena :apu@ despite convincin and ove"'helmin sins of its t"uthfulness.
II. -he Cou"t of Appeals committed "eve"sible e""o" 'hen it failed to ive due 'eiht to the
findins of the DECS, 'hich conducted the administ"ative investiation, specificall# 'ith
"espect to the c"edibilit# of the 'itnesses p"esented.
III. -he Cou"t of Appeals e""ed in "ulin that "espondent should be penali@ed unde" Sec. 66
(o* of the Omnibus 2ules Implementin Boo! H and not Sec. 66 (e* of said "ules.&
/6
In his comment, "espondent maintains that MadalenaTs de"oato"# "eco"d unde"mines the ve"it# of
he" cha"e and that the Cou"t of Appeals is co""ect in dismissin it.
-he petition is imp"essed 'ith me"it.
-he pivotal issue befo"e us is 'hethe" complainin 'itness, Madalena :apu@, is c"edible. -his is a
$uestion of fact 'hich, as a ene"al "ule, is not subAect to this Cou"tTs "evie'.
It is a "ule of lon standin that factual findins of the Cou"t of Appeals, if suppo"ted b# substantial
evidence, a"e conclusive and bindin on the pa"ties and a"e not "evie'able b# this Cou"t.
/1
-his
Cou"t is, afte" all, not a t"ie" of facts. One of the e,ceptions, ho'eve", is 'hen the findins of the
Cou"t of Appeals a"e cont"a"# to those of the t"ial cou"t o" a quasi%/udicial bod#, li!e petitione"
he"ein.
/>
<e"e, the Cou"t of Appeals and the CSC a"e poles apa"t in thei" app"eciation of MadalenaTs
de"oato"# "eco"d. )hile the fo"me" conside"ed it of &vital and pa"amount impo"tance& in dete"minin
the t"uth of he" cha"e, the latte" dismissed it as of &mino" sinificance.& -his cont"a"iet# p"opels us
to the elusive a"ea of cha"acte" and "eputation evidence.
:ene"all#, the cha"acte" of a pa"t# is "ea"ded as leall# i""elevant in dete"minin a
cont"ove"s#.
/7
One statuto"# e,ception is that "elied upon b# "espondent, i.e., Section 7/ (a* 1, 2ule
/10 of the 2evised 2ules on Evidence, 'hich 'e $uote he"e;
&SEC. 7/. -haracter evidence not generally admissibleJ e#ceptions. @
>a? In C"iminal Cases;
, , , , , ,
(1* -he ood o" bad mo"al cha"acte" of the offended pa"t# ma# be p"oved if it
tends to establish in an# "easonable de"ee the p"obabilit# o" imp"obabilit# of
the offense cha"ed.&
It 'ill be "eadil# obse"ved that the above p"ovision pe"tains onl# to c"iminal cases, not to
administ"ative offenses. And even assumin that this technical "ule of evidence can be applied he"e,
still, 'e cannot sustain "espondentTs postu"e.
Not eve"# ood o" bad mo"al cha"acte" of the offended pa"t# ma# be p"oved unde" this p"ovision.
Onl# those 'hich 'ould establish the p"obabilit# o" imp"obabilit# of the offense cha"ed. -his means
that the cha"acte" evidence must be limited to the t"aits and cha"acte"istics involved in the t#pe of
offense cha"ed.
/9
-hus, on a cha"e of "ape % cha"acte" fo" chastit#, on a cha"e of assault %
cha"acte" fo" peaceableness o" violence, and on a cha"e of embe@@lement % cha"acte" fo"
honest#.
/?
In one "ape case, 'he"e it 'as established that the alleed victim 'as mo"all# loose and
appa"entl# unca"in about he" chastit#, 'e found the conviction of the accused doubtful.
/8
In the p"esent administ"ative case fo" se,ual ha"assment, "espondent did not offe" evidence that has
a bea"in on MadalenaTs chastit#. )hat he p"esented a"e cha"es fo" "ave o"al defamation, "ave
th"eats, unAust ve,ation, ph#sical inAu"ies, malicious mischief, etc. filed aainst he". Ce"tainl#, these
pieces of evidence a"e inadmissible unde" the above p"ovision because the# do not establish the
p"obabilit# o" imp"obabilit# of the offense cha"ed.
Obviousl#, in invo!in the above p"ovision, 'hat "espondent 'as t"#in to establish is MadalenaTs
lac! of c"edibilit# and not the p"obabilit# o" the imp"obabilit# of the cha"e. In this "ea"d, a diffe"ent
p"ovision applies.
C"edibilit# means the disposition and intention to tell the t"uth in the testimon# iven. It "efe"s to a
pe"sonTs inte"it#, and to the fact that he is 'o"th# of belief.
/.
A 'itness ma# be disc"edited b#
evidence attac!in his ene"al "eputation fo" t"uth,
60
honest#
6/
o" inte"it#.
66
Section //, 2ule /16 of
the same 2evised 2ules on Evidence "eads;
&SEC. 11. (mpeachment of adverse partyAs witness. KA 'itness ma# be impeached b# the
pa"t# aainst 'hom he 'as called, b# cont"adicto"# evidence, 5y 'A/-'n)' *&a* &/( 1'n'ra,
r'+u*a*/on 2or *ru*&, &on'(*y, or /n*'1r/*y /( 5a-, o" b# evidence that he has made at othe"
times statements inconsistent 'ith his p"esent testimon#, 5u* no* 5y 'A/-'n)' o2 +ar*/)u,ar
@ron12u, a)*(, e,cept that it ma# be sho'n b# the e,amination of the 'itness, o" *&' r')or-
o2 *&' Bu-1.'n*, *&a* &' &a( 5''n )onA/)*'- o2 an o22'n('.&
Althouh she is the offended pa"t#, Madalena, b# testif#in in he" o'n behalf, opened he"self to
cha"acte" o" "eputation attac! pu"suant to the p"inciple that a pa"t# 'ho becomes a 'itness in his
o'n behalf places himself in the same position as an# othe" 'itness, and ma# be impeached b# an
attac! on his cha"acte" o" "eputation.
61
)ith the fo"eoin dis$uisition, the Cou"t of Appeals is co""ect in holdin that the cha"acte" o"
"eputation of a complainin 'itness in a se,ual cha"e is a p"ope" subAect of in$ui"#. -his leads us to
the ultimate $uestion K is MadalenaTs de"oato"# "eco"d sufficient to disc"edit he" c"edibilit#G
A ca"eful "evie' of the "eco"d #ields a neative ans'e".
5i"st, most of the t'ent#%t'o (66* cases filed 'ith the M-C of Bauio Cit# "elate to acts committed in
the 80Ts, pa"ticula"l#, /.87 and /.89. )ith "espect to the complaints filed 'ith the Chai"men of
Ba"ana# :ab"iela Silan and Ba"ana# <illside, the acts complained of too! place in /.?8 to /.?..
In the instant administ"ative case, the offense 'as committed in /..>. Su"el#, those cases and
complaints a"e no lone" "eliable p"oofs of MadalenaTs cha"acte" o" "eputation. -he Cou"t of
Appeals, the"efo"e, e""ed in acco"din much 'eiht to such evidence. Settled is the p"inciple that
evidence of oneTs cha"acte" o" "eputation must be confined to a time not too "emote f"om the time in
$uestion.
6>
In othe" 'o"ds, 'hat is to be dete"mined is the cha"acte" o" "eputation of the pe"son at
the time of the t"ial and p"io" the"eto, but not at a pe"iod "emote f"om the commencement of the
suit.
67
<ence, to sa# that MadalenaTs c"edibilit# is diminished b# p"oofs of ta"nished "eputation
e,istin almost a decade ao is un"easonable. It is unfai" to p"esume that a pe"son 'ho has
'ande"ed f"om the path of mo"al "ihteousness can neve" "et"ace his steps aain. Ce"tainl#, eve"#
pe"son is capable to chane o" "efo"m.
Second, "espondent failed to p"ove that Madalena 'as convicted in an# of the c"iminal cases
specified b# "espondent. -he ene"al "ule p"evailin in a "eat maAo"it# of Au"isdictions is that it is not
pe"missible to sho' that a 'itness has been a""ested o" that he has been cha"ed 'ith o"
p"osecuted fo" a c"iminal offense, o" confined in Aail fo" the pu"pose of impai"in his c"edibilit#.
69
-his
vie' has usuall# been based upon one o" mo"e of the follo'in "ounds o" theo"ies; (a* that a me"e
unp"oven cha"e aainst the 'itness does not loicall# tend to affect his c"edibilit#, (b* that innocent
pe"sons a"e often a""ested o" accused of a c"ime, (c* that one accused of a c"ime is p"esumed to be
innocent until his uilt is leall# established, and (d* that a 'itness ma# not be impeached o"
disc"edited b# evidence of pa"ticula" acts of misconduct.
6?
Sinificantl#, the same Section //, 2ule
/16 of ou" 2evised 2ules on Evidence p"ovides that a 'itness ma# not be impeached b# evidence
of pa"ticula" '"onful acts. Such evidence is "eAected because of the confusion of issues and the
'aste of time that 'ould be involved, and because the 'itness ma# not be p"epa"ed to e,pose the
falsit# of such '"onful acts.
68
As it happened in this case, Madalena 'as not able to e,plain o"
"ebut 'a)& of the cha"es aainst he" listed b# "espondent.
But mo"e than an#thin else, 'hat convinces us to sustain the 2esolution of the CSC is the fact that
it is suppo"ted b# substantial evidence. As aptl# pointed out b# the Solicito" :ene"al, Madalena
testified in a st"aihtfo"'a"d, candid and spontaneous manne". <e" testimon# is "eplete 'ith details,
such as the numbe" of times she and "espondent inspected the p"e%school, the specific pa"t of the
stai"s 'he"e "espondent !issed he", and the matte" about he" t"ansient boa"de"s du"in summe".
Madalena 'ould not have no"mall# thouht about these details if she 'e"e not tellin the t"uth. )e
$uote he" testimon# du"in the c"oss%e,amination conducted b# DECS Assistant Sec"eta"# 2omeo
Capinpin and +nde"sec"eta"# Antonio Nachu"a, thus;
&L )as the"e an# conve"sation bet'een #ou and D". Belaan du"in the inspection on the
fi"st floo" and the second floo"G
A -he"e 'as, si". It 'as a casual conve"sation that 'e had 'ith "ea"d to m# famil#,
bac!"ound, ho' the school came about, ho' I sta"ted 'ith the p"oAect. -hat 'as all, si".
L Nothin about an# fo"m of se,ual ha"assment, in 'o"ds o" in deedsG
A Si", because he inspected the second floo" t'ice, si". )e 'ent up to the stai"s t'ice, si".
L )h#G
A I "eall# donTt !no' 'hat 'as the "eason behind, si". But on the second inspection, si", I told
him that as of that time I had some t"ansients 'ith me. I 'as ma!in use of the p"emises fo"
t"ansients because that 'as summe" then, si". And I al"ead# sta"ted pa#in the place so I
said, VSi", I have some t"ansients 'ith me in the eveninT and he said, =ou !no' M"s. :apu@,
I am inte"ested to sta# in one of the "ooms as one #ou" boa"de"s. But I "espectfull# declined
sa#in, VSi", I thin! fo" delicade0a I cannot accept #ou. Not that I donTt 'ant #ou to be he"e
but people miht thin! that I am !eepin #ou he"e and that 'ould p"eAudice m# pe"mit, si".T
ASEC 2. CAPINPIN;
L )hen did the alleed !issin occu"G )as it du"in the fi"st time that #ou 'ent up 'ith him
o" the second timeG
A No, si", on the second time, si".
L Second timeG
A =es, si". )e 'e"e oin do'n, si".
L And #ou 'e"e oin do'nG
A =es, si".
L Do #ou "ecall 'hat po"tion of the stai"s 'he"e #ou 'e"e du"in the alleed !issinG
A Si", on the topmost of the stai"s.
L Befo"e #ou 'ent do'nG
A =es, si". At the topmost because the"e is a base floo" oin up to the stai"s and it has /9
steps.
L So, it 'as not on the /9th step but still on the topmostG
A =es si".
L Pa"t of the floo" of the buildinG
A =es, si". -opmost, si"G
ASEC 2. CAPINPIN;
L )ill #ou !indl# tell us #ou" "elative position at that timeG
A Si", on the second time that 'e 'ent up and I mentioned about these t"ansients that I had
then and he 'anted to sta# in the place in one of the "ooms and then I declined and I 'as
still sho'in the "ooms simultaneousl#. On the last, the biest "oom that I had, he said, VNo.
Neve" mind, I am not oin to see that an#mo"e.T So he 'aited fo" me the"e and upon
"eachin the place, as I 'as to step do'n on the fi"st step oin do'n, he placed his a"m
and held me tihtl# and planted the !iss on m# chee!, si".
L =ou said that he 'anted to sta# in one of the "oomsG
A =es, si", as a boa"de".
L Is that "oom used fo" t"ansientsG
A Du"in that time, si", du"in the summe"time, I made use of the time to et some t"ansients.
L And he 'as tellin #ou that he 'anted to occup# one of the "oomsG
A =es, but I declined, si" fo" delicade0a.
L At that time, the"e 'e"e no t"ansients #et.
A )hen he came ove" fo" the inspection si", nobod# 'as the"e.&
6.
-he above testimon# does not stand in isolation. It is co""obo"ated b# Pete" Nabit, DECS Assistant
Division Supe"intendent. Nabit testified that Madalena "epo"ted to him that "espondent !issed he"
and as!ed he" fo" a &date.&
&L I 'ould li!e to call #ou" attention to E,hibit VAT 'hich is the affidavit of M"s. Madalena B.
:apu@, pa"ticula"l# item no. 8, and ma# I "ead fo" #ou" info"mation K V-hat the Monda# afte"
the incident, I 'ent to the DECS Division Office e,pectin to et favo"able "ecommendation
f"om the DECS 2eional Office fo" the issuance of m# pe"mit. -hat I p"oceeded to the
Supe"intendent and as!ed him, VSir, "umusta Byung application "oT and he said, Vmag date
muna tayoT but I "efused and e,plained that I am ma""ied, afte" 'hich I p"oceeded to the
Office of Asst. Supe"intendent Pete" Nabit to "elate the incident and then left the Division
Office.T Do #ou "emembe" if M"s. :apu@ 'ent to #ou" Office on the pa"ticula" da#G
A =es, si".
L )hat time 'as thatG
A I cannot "emembe", si".
L )as it mo"nin, afte"noonG
A I thin! it 'as in the mo"nin, si".
L Mo"nin.
A =es, si".
L Ea"l# mo"ninG
A About noon, si".
L )hat t"anspi"ed bet'een #ou and M"s. :apu@ in #ou" officeG
A )hen she came to m# Office, she 'as "elatin about that and she 'as even insultin me
sa#in amon othe"s that I 'as a useless fi,tu"e in that Office because I cannot do an#thin
'ith the p"ocessin of he" pape" o" application.
: !* (ay( &'r' *&a* (&' @ou,- r',a*' *&' /n)/-'n* *o you. 8/- (&' r',a*' any /n)/-'n*C
" <'(, (&' -/- (/r.
: 7&a* @a( *&a* /n)/-'n* a,, a5ou*C
" S&' @a( (ay/n1 *&a* @&'n Mr. $',a1an @'n* *o A/(/* &'r ()&oo,, &' (*o,' a 0/(( 2ro.
&'r an- *&a* (&' @a( (ay/n1 *&a* @&'n (&' a(0'- Su+*. $',a1an 2or &'r +a+'r(, (&'
@a( a(0'- 2or a -a*' 5'2or' *&' !n-or('.'n*. "2*'r *&a*, (&' ,'2*.&
10
)ith MadalenaTs positive testimon# and that of Nabit, ho' can 'e dis"ea"d the findins of the
DECS and the CSCG Su"el#, 'e cannot debun! it simpl# because of the Cou"t of AppealsT outdated
cha"acte"i@ation of Madalena as a 'oman of bad "eputation. -he"e a"e a numbe" of cases 'he"e
the t"ie"s of fact believe the testimon# of a 'itness of bad cha"acte"
1/
and "efuse to believe one of
ood cha"acte".
16
As a matte" of fact, even a 'itness 'ho has been convicted a numbe" of times is
'o"th# of belief, 'hen he testified in a st"aihtfo"'a"d and convincin manne".
11
At this Aunctu"e, it bea"s st"essin that mo"e than an#bod# else, it is the DECS investiatin officials
'ho a"e in a bette" position to dete"mine 'hethe" Madalena is tellin the t"uth conside"in that the#
'e"e able to hea" and obse"ve he" depo"tment and manne" of testif#in.
1>
In "eve"sin the CSCTs 2esolutions, the Cou"t of Appeals "uled that &the"e is ample evidence to sho'
that Madalena had a motive& in accusin "espondent, i.e., to p"essu"e him to issue a pe"mit. -his is
unconvincin. -he "eco"d sho's that "espondent had al"ead# issued the pe"mit 'hen Madalena
filed he" lette"%complaint. Indeed, she had no mo"e "eason to cha"e "espondent administ"ativel#,
e,cept of cou"se to vindicate he" hono".
Petitione" p"a#s that 'e sustain its "ulin penali@in "espondent fo" "ave misconduct and not me"el#
fo" dis"aceful o" immo"al conduct 'hich is punishable b# suspension fo" si, (9* months and one (/*
da# to one (/* #ea" fo" the fi"st offense.
17
Misconduct means intentional '"ondoin o" delibe"ate
violation of a "ule of la' o" standa"d of behavio", especiall# b# a ove"nment official.
19
-o constitute
an administ"ative offense, misconduct should "elate to o" be connected 'ith the pe"fo"mance of the
official functions and duties of a public office".
1?
In "ave misconduct as distinuished f"om simple
misconduct, the elements of co""uption, clea" intent to violate the la' o" fla"ant dis"ea"d of
established "ule, must be manifest.
18
Co""uption as an element of "ave misconduct consists in the
act of an official o" fiducia"# pe"son 'ho unla'full# and '"onfull# uses his station o" cha"acte" to
p"ocu"e some benefit fo" himself o" fo" anothe" pe"son, cont"a"# to dut# and the "ihts of
othe"s.
1.
-his is appa"entl# p"esent in "espondentTs case as it conce"ns not onl# a stolen !iss but also
a demand fo" a &date,& an unla'ful conside"ation fo" the issuance of a pe"mit to ope"ate a p"e%
school. 2espondentTs act clea"l# constitutes "ave misconduct, punishable b# dismissal.
>0
)e a"e, ho'eve", not inclined to impose the penalt# of dismissal f"om the se"vice. 2espondent has
se"ved the ove"nment fo" a pe"iod of 1? #ea"s, du"in 'hich, he made a stead# ascent f"om an
Elementa"# :"ade School -eache" to Schools Division Supe"intendent. In devotin the best #ea"s of
his life to the education depa"tment, he "eceived nume"ous a'a"ds.
>/
-his is the fi"st time he is bein
administ"ativel# cha"ed. <e is in the ede of "eti"ement. In fact, he had filed his application fo"
"eti"ement 'hen Madalena filed he" complaint. Section /9, 2ule UIH, of the 2ules Implementin
Boo! H of E,ecutive O"de" No. 6.6 p"ovides;
&SEC. 1;. In the dete"mination of penalties to be imposed, mitiatin and a"avatin
ci"cumstances ma# be conside"ed. , , ,.&
-he mitiatin ci"cumstances a"e enume"ated in Section 71, 2ule IH, of the +nifo"m 2ules on
Administ"ative Cases in the Civil Se"vice,
>6
'hich "eads in pa"t;
&SEC. 71. E,tenuatin, Mitiatin, A"avatin, o" Alte"native Ci"cumstances. K In the
dete"mination of the penalties to be imposed, mitiatin, a"avatin and alte"native
ci"cumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be conside"ed.
-he follo'in ci"cumstances shall be app"eciated;
, , , , , ,
A. lenth of se"vice
, , , , , ,
l. an- o*&'r ana,o1ou( )a('(.&
Confo"mabl# 'ith ou" "ulin in a simila" case of se,ual ha"assment,
>1
and "espondentTs lenth of
se"vice, unblemished "eco"d in the past and nume"ous a'a"ds,
>>
the penalt# of suspension f"om
office 'ithout pa# fo" one (/* #ea" is in o"de".
)hile 'e 'ill not condone the '"ondoin of public office"s and emplo#ees, ho'eve", neithe" 'ill 'e
neate an# move to "econi@e and "emune"ate thei" lenth# se"vice in the ove"nment.
7EREFORE, the petition is GR"NTE8. -he Decision of the Cou"t of Appeals dated Fanua"# 8,
/..8 in CA%:.2. SP No. >>/80 is RE#ERSE8. -he CSC 2esolution Nos. .996/1 and .?6>61
a"e "FF!RME8, subAect to the modification that "espondent "LL<SON
$EL"G"N is SUSPEN8E8 f"om office 'ithout pa# fo" ONE >1? <E"R, 'ith full c"edit of his
p"eventive suspension.
SO OR8ERE8.