CASE DIGEST: People v. Genosa, GR No.

135981

Title: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:

The wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years. She was 8 months pregnant
when, one evening, her husband came home drunk and started to batter her. Shouting that his wife
"might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag" him, he dragged her towards a drawer where he
kept a gun, but was not able to open the drawer because itwas locked. So he got out a cutter from his
wallet, but dropped it. She was able to hit his armwith a pipe and escape into another room. The wife,
thinking of all the suffering that her husband had been inflicting on her, and thinking that he might really
kill her and her unbornchild, distorted the drawer and got the gun. She shot her husband, who was by
then asleep on the bed. She was tried and convicted for parricide, which is punishable by reclusion
perpetua, she alleged "battered woman syndrome" as a form of self'defense.

Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and wounded his husband which
ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she did not provoke her husband when she got
home that night and it was her husband who began the provocation. The appellant said she was
frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby
safely.

The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five times,
but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The appellant said that the reason why
Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy about his recent
girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to be
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-defense admitted the killing
of her husband. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide, with the aggravating circumstance of
treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.

(2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

Held:

For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense arising
from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (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 intimated 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 an 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 perpetuated by the former against the latter.

For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating circumstance because the quarrel or
argument that preceded the killing must have forewarned the victim of the assailant’s aggression.

on or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay Bilwang, Municipality of Isabel, Province of
Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound one BEN GENOSA, her legitimate husband, with the use of a
hard deadly weapon, which the accused had provided herself for the purpose, [causing] the following
wounds, to wit:

Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer for acquittal on a novel theory -- the
battered woman syndrome (BWS), which allegedly constitutes self-defense. Under the proven facts,
however, she is not entitled to complete exoneration because there was no unlawful aggression -- no
immediate and unexpected attack on her by her batterer-husband at the time she shot him.

Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant constituted a form of cumulative
provocation that broke down her psychological resistance and self-control. This psychological paralysis
she suffered diminished her will power, thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9
and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
In addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon
an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. The acute battering she
suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she was eight
months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental
state, which overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn childs.

Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances arising from BWS, as well as the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she may now apply for and be released from custody on
parole, because she has already served the minimum period of her penalty while under detention during
the pendency of this case.

Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical assault at
the time of the killing is not required.

After this case was decided by the SC, VAWC was enacted, said law provides that victim survivors who
are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur any criminal and
civil liability nothwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the RPC.