PEOPLE VS.
GENOSA
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Appellant: Marivic Genosa
G.R. No. 135981
September 29, 2000
Ponente: Panganiban, J.
“Aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there
can be no self-defense – complete of incomplete – on the part of the victim.”
FACTS:
Appellant was married to the victim Ben Genosa. In their first year of marriage,
Marivic and Ben lived happily but soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often
and their fights would become violent. Ben, a habitual drinker, became cruel to
Marivic; he would provoke her, slap her, pin her down on the bed or beat her.
These incidents happened several times and Marivic would often run home to her
parents. She had tried to leave her husband at least five times, but Ben would
always follow her and they would reconcile.
On the night of the killing, appellant, who was then eight months pregnant, and
the victim quarreled. The latter beat her, however, she was able to run to another
room. Allegedly there was no provocation on her part when she got home that
night, and it was her husband who began the provocation. Frightened that her
husband would hurt her and wanting to make sure she would deliver her baby
safely, appellant admitted having killed the victim, who was then sleeping at the
time, with the use of a gun. Marivic invokes self-defense, and claims that she is a
battered woman.
RTC found Marivic guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide
attended by treachery and was given the penalty of death.
The case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
Experts opined that Marivic fits the profile of a battered woman syndrome and at
the time she killed her husband, her mental condition was that she was re-
experiencing the trauma, together with the imprint of all the abuses that she had
experienced in the past.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not appellant can validly invoke the Battered Woman Syndrome as
constituting self-defense;
2.) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.
RULING:
No, the Court ruled in the negative on both issues.
1.) The Court held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-
defense arising from the 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
intimate partner;
(b) the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must
have produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear of an imminent harm
from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to
save her life; 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 o of self-
defense arising from the battered woman syndrome.
Under the existing facts of the case, however, not all of these were duly
established.
Here, there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben
and her fatal attack upon him. In fact, she had already been able to withdraw
from his violent behavior and escape to their children’s bedroom.
The attack had apparently ceased and the reality or even imminence of the
danger he posed had ended altogether.
Ben was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or
safety.
2.) The Court ruled that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel,
treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the
deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated
aggression from the assailant.
Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia (treachery), the method of assault
adopted by the aggressor must have been consciously and deliberately chosen for
the specific purpose of accomplishing the unlawful act without risk from any
defense that might be put up by the party attacked.
Here, there is no showing that appellant intentionally chose a specific means of
successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory
act that he might make.
It appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the
same moment when she decided to kill her batterer-spouse.
Thus, in the absence of any convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately
employed the method by which she committed the crime in order to ensure its
execution, the Court resolved the doubt in her favor.
NB.
A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is repeatedly subjected
to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce
her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered
women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men.
Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go
through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an
abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains
in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman."
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-esteem,
traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional
dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for
the batterer's actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve.26
More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called
"cycle of violence," which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2)
the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent)
phase.
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or
slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually
tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by
simply staying out of his way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to
be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to
prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish,
however, proves to be double-edged, because her "placatory" and passive
behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place.
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no
control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as
unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it.
The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that
resistance would only exacerbate her condition.
The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident
ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. On the
one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his
partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it,
begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other
hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will
never happen again; that her partner will change for the better; and that this
"good, gentle and caring man" is the real person whom she loves.
