BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION

CRIMINAL LAW 1 - CASE DIGEST

People v. Genosa
G.R. No. 135981 - September 29, 2000
Panganiban, J.

FACTS:

Marivic Genosa finds by the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City of guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of Paracide.

The appellant now is seeking for acquital as she claimed he is a battered woman. The several beatings
and repeatedly maltreatment of his husband provocate her to break down her psychological resistance
and self-control. She testify that in their first year of merriage, they lived happily but soon after they do
quarrels that results to violence. Whenever Ben, his husband, come home drunk, she would beat her,
slap, and pinned her to bed, and the next day they will be okay.

One of the persons defending the appellant, testify that he overheard the quarrel of the couple and heard
Marivic shouting for help. He saw the couple grapping each other and saw Ben chocking Marivic.The
Doctor of Marivic Genosa also testified that from July 6, 1989 until November 9, 1995, there were six
episodes of physical injuries inflicted upon Marivic.

On the night of the killing, appellant who was 8 months pregnant had a quarrel with his hasband.
Frightened that his husband would hurt her, the appellant killed her husband while sleeping with the use
of a gun.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant with the facts aforemention be extempted from criminal liability for self-
defense arising from the battered woman syndrom.

RULLING:

No. The Court determined that the defense failed to demonstrate all of the criteria of self-defense
emerging from the battered woman syndrome, namely: (a) each of the phases of the cycle of violence
must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimate partner; (b) the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have
produced in the battered person's mind an actual fear of imminent harm from her batterer and an honest
belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life; and (c) at the time of the killing, the batterer
must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to the accused, based
on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these
circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense.

However, in the facts of the case, not all of these were properly established. There was sufficient time
between Ben's unlawful aggression and his violent attack on her in this case. She had, in fact, already
been able to retreat from his aggressive conduct and flee to their children's bedroom. The attack had
obviously finished, and the actuality, if not the imminence, of the threat he presented had vanished. Ben
was no longer in a situation where she was in danger of losing her life or safety.