This case, stemming from a wife's killing of her husband in 1995, is the first to use "battered woman syndrome" as a defense. Read the full case below and how the Supreme Court judged this landmark case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC
GENOSA, appellant. [G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004]
EN BANC
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
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 child’s.
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.
The Case
For automatic review before this Court is the September 25, 1998
Decision[1] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City (Branch 35) in Criminal Case No.
5016-0, finding Marivic Genosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide.
The decretal portion of the Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered, the
Court finds the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Parricide as provided under Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code as restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659, and after finding treachery as a
generic aggravating circumstance and none of mitigating circumstance, hereby
sentences the accused with the penalty of DEATH.
“The Court likewise penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of the
deceased the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine
currency as indemnity and another sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00),
Philippine currency as moral damages.”[2]
The Information[3] charged
appellant with parricide as follows:
“That 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:
‘Body on the 2nd stage of decomposition.
‘Face, black, blownup
& swollen w/ evident post-mortem lividity. Eyes protruding from its
sockets and tongue slightly protrudes out of the mouth.
‘Fracture, open,
depressed, circular located at the occipital bone of the head, resulting [in]
laceration of the brain, spontaneous rupture of the blood vessels on the
posterior surface of the brain, laceration of the dura and meningeal vessels
producing severe intracranial hemorrhage.
‘Blisters at both extrem[i]ties, anterior chest, posterior chest,
trunk w/ shedding of the epidermis.
‘Abdomen distended w/ gas. Trunk bloated.’
which caused his death.”[4]
With the assistance of her counsel,[5]
appellant pleaded not guilty during her arraignment on March 3, 1997.[6]
In due course, she was tried for and convicted of parricide.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the
prosecution’s version of the facts in this wise:
“Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19,
1983 in Ormoc City. Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in their
house at Isabel, Leyte. For a time, Ben’s younger brother, Alex, and his wife
lived with them too. Sometime in 1995, however, appellant and Ben rented from
Steban Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte where they lived with
their two children, namely: John Marben and Earl Pierre.
“On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight
after receiving their salary. They each had two (2) bottles of beer before
heading home. Arturo would pass Ben’s house before reaching his. When they
arrived at the house of Ben, he found out that appellant had gone to Isabel,
Leyte to look for him. Ben went inside his house, while Arturo went to a store
across it, waiting until 9:00 in the evening for the masiao runner to
place a bet. Arturo did not see appellant arrive but on his way home passing
the side of the Genosas’ rented house, he heard her say ‘I won’t hesitate to
kill you’ to which Ben replied ‘Why kill me when I am innocent?’ That was the
last time Arturo saw Ben alive. Arturo also noticed that since then, the
Genosas’ rented house appeared uninhabited and was always closed.
“On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close
friend and neighbor living about fifty (50) meters from her house, to look
after her pig because she was going to Cebu for a pregnancy check-up.
Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell her motorcycle to their neighbor
Ronnie Dayandayan who unfortunately had no money to buy it.
“That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was
waiting for a bus going to Ormoc when he saw appellant going out of their house
with her two kids in tow, each one carrying a bag, locking the gate and taking
her children to the waiting area where he was. Joseph lived about fifty (50)
meters behind the Genosas’ rented house. Joseph, appellant and her children
rode the same bus to Ormoc. They had no conversation as Joseph noticed that
appellant did not want to talk to him.
“On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him
about the foul odor emanating from his house being rented by Ben and
appellant. Steban went there to find out the cause of the stench but the house
was locked from the inside. Since he did not have a duplicate key with him,
Steban destroyed the gate padlock with a borrowed steel saw. He was able to
get inside through the kitchen door but only after destroying a window to reach
a hook that locked it. Alone, Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom where
the offensive smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben
lying on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his briefs
with injuries at the back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the
house and sent word to the mother of Ben about his son’s misfortune. Later
that day, Iluminada Genosa, the mother of Ben, identified the dead body as that
of [her] son.
“Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin, then
assigned at the police station at Isabel, Leyte, received a report regarding
the foul smell at the Genosas’ rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares, SPO1
Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the house and went
inside the bedroom where they found the dead body of Ben lying on his side
wrapped with a bedsheet. There was blood at the nape of Ben who only had his
briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found in one corner at the side of an aparador
a metal pipe about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning against a wall.
The metal pipe measured three (3) feet and six (6) inches long with a diameter
of one and half (1 1/2) inches. It had an open end without a stop valve with a
red stain at one end. The bedroom was not in disarray.
“About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its
stench, had to be taken outside at the back of the house before the postmortem
examination was conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the presence of the police. A
municipal health officer at Isabel, Leyte responsible for medico-legal cases,
Dr. Cerillo found that Ben had been dead for two to three days and his body was
already decomposing. The postmortem examination of Dr. Cerillo yielded the
findings quoted in the Information for parricide later filed against
appellant. She concluded that the cause of Ben’s death was ‘cardiopulmonary
arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture
of the occipital [bone].’
“Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going
home after work on November 15, 1995, she got worried that her husband who was
not home yet might have gone gambling since it was a payday. With her cousin
Ecel Araño, appellant went to look for Ben at the marketplace and taverns at
Isabel, Leyte but did not find him there. They found Ben drunk upon their
return at the Genosas’ house. Ecel went home despite appellant’s request for
her to sleep in their house.
“Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even
challenging her to a fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead attended to
their children who were doing their homework. Apparently disappointed with her
reaction, Ben switched off the light and, with the use of a chopping knife, cut
the television antenna or wire to keep her from watching television. According
to appellant, Ben was about to attack her so she ran to the bedroom, but he got
hold of her hands and whirled her around. She fell on the side of the bed and
screamed for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant packed his clothes
because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed clothes upon his return
home, Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom
towards a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her ‘You might as well be
killed so nobody would nag me.’ Appellant testified that she was aware that
there was a gun inside the drawer but since Ben did not have the key to it, he
got a three-inch long blade cutter from his wallet. She however, ‘smashed’ the
arm of Ben with a pipe, causing him to drop the blade and his wallet.
Appellant then ‘smashed’ Ben at his nape with the pipe as he was about to pick
up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom.
“Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband
by shooting him. She supposedly ‘distorted’ the drawer where the gun was and
shot Ben. He did not die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom.”[7]
(Citations omitted)
Version of the Defense
Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:
“1. Marivic and Ben Genosa
were allegedly married on November 19, 1983. Prior to her marriage, Marivic
had graduated from San Carlos, Cebu City, obtaining a degree of Bachelor of
Science in Business Administration, and was working, at the time of her husband’s
death, as a Secretary to the Port Managers in Ormoc City. The couple had three
(3) children: John Marben, Earl Pierre and Marie Bianca.
“2. Marivic and Ben had known
each other since elementary school; they were neighbors in Bilwang; they were
classmates; and they were third degree cousins. Both sets of parents were
against their relationship, but Ben was persistent and tried to stop other
suitors from courting her. Their closeness developed as he was her constant
partner at fiestas.
“3. After their marriage, they
lived first in the home of Ben’s parents, together with Ben’s brother, Alex, in
Isabel, Leyte. In the first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben ‘lived
happily’. But apparently, soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and
their fights would become violent.
“4. Ben’s brother, Alex,
testified for the prosecution that he could not remember when Ben and Marivic
married. He said that when Ben and Marivic quarreled, generally when Ben
would come home drunk, Marivic would inflict injuries on him. He said that
in one incident in 1993 he saw Marivic holding a kitchen knife after Ben had
shouted for help as his left hand was covered with blood. Marivic left the
house but after a week, she returned apparently having asked for Ben’s forgiveness.
In another incident in May 22, 1994, early morning, Alex and his father
apparently rushed to Ben’s aid again and saw blood from Ben’s forehead and
Marivic holding an empty bottle. Ben and Marivic reconciled after Marivic had
apparently again asked for Ben’s forgiveness.
“Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivic’s
mother-in-law, testified too, saying that Ben and Marivic married in ‘1986 or
1985 more or less here in Fatima, Ormoc City.’ She said as the marriage went
along, Marivic became ‘already very demanding. Mrs. Iluminada Genosa said that
after the birth of Marivic’s two sons, there were ‘three (3)
misunderstandings.’ The first was when Marivic stabbed Ben with a table knife
through his left arm; the second incident was on November 15, 1994, when
Marivic struck Ben on the forehead ‘using a sharp instrument until the
eye was also affected. It was wounded and also the ear’ and her husband went
to Ben to help; and the third incident was in 1995 when the couple had already
transferred to the house in Bilwang and she saw that Ben’s hand was plastered
as ‘the bone cracked.’
“Both mother and son claimed they brought
Ben to a Pasar clinic for medical intervention.
“5. Arturo Basobas, a
co-worker of Ben, testified that on November 15, 1995 ‘After we collected our
salary, we went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO.’ They stayed there for
three (3) hours, after which they went to ‘Uniloks’ and drank beer – allegedly
only two (2) bottles each. After drinking they bought barbeque and went to the
Genosa residence. Marivic was not there. He stayed a while talking
with Ben, after which he went across the road to wait ‘for the runner and the
usher of the masiao game because during that time, the hearing on masiao
numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the ushers and runners so that I can
place my bet.’ On his way home at about 9:00 in the evening, he heard the
Genosas arguing. They were quarreling loudly. Outside their house was one
‘Fredo’ who is used by Ben to feed his fighting cocks. Basobas’ testimony on
the root of the quarrel, conveniently overheard by him was Marivic saying ‘I
will never hesitate to kill you’, whilst Ben replied ‘Why kill me when I am
innocent.’ Basobas thought they were joking.
“He did not hear them quarreling while he
was across the road from the Genosa residence. Basobas admitted that he and
Ben were always at the cockpits every Saturday and Sunday. He claims that he
once told Ben ‘before when he was stricken with a bottle by Marivic Genosa’
that he should leave her and that Ben would always take her back after she
would leave him ‘so many times’.
“Basobas could not remember when Marivic
had hit Ben, but it was a long time that they had been quarreling. He said Ben
‘even had a wound’ on the right forehead. He had known the couple for only one
(1) year.
“6. Marivic testified that
after the first year of marriage, Ben became cruel to her and was a habitual
drinker. She said he provoked her, he would slap her, sometimes he would pin
her down on the bed, and sometimes beat her.
“These incidents happened several times and
she would often run home to her parents, but Ben would follow her and seek her
out, promising to change and would ask for her forgiveness. She said after she
would be beaten, she would seek medical help from Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero
and Dra. Cerillo. These doctors would enter the injuries inflicted upon her by
Ben into their reports. Marivic said Ben would beat her or quarrel with her
every time he was drunk, at least three times a week.
“7. In her defense, witnesses
who were not so closely related to Marivic, testified as to the abuse
and violence she received at the hands of Ben.
‘7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman,
who was a [neighbor] of the Genosas, testified that on November 15, 1995, he
overheard a quarrel between Ben and Marivic. Marivic was shouting for help and
through the open jalousies, he saw the spouses ‘grappling with each other’.
Ben had Marivic in a choke hold. He did not do anything, but had come
voluntarily to testify. (Please note this was the same night as that
testified to by Arturo Busabos.[8])
‘7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a
fisherman, and the brother of Mr. Joe Barrientos, testified that he heard his
neighbor Marivic shouting on the night of November 15, 1995. He peeped through
the window of his hut which is located beside the Genosa house and saw ‘the
spouses grappling with each other then Ben Genosa was holding with his both
hands the neck of the accused, Marivic Genosa’. He said after a while, Marivic
was able to extricate he[r]self and enter the room of the children. After
that, he went back to work as he was to go fishing that evening. He returned
at 8:00 the next morning. (Again, please note that this was the same night
as that testified to by Arturo Basobas).
‘7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former
neighbor of the Genosas while they were living in Isabel, Leyte. His house was
located about fifty (50) meters from theirs. Marivic is his niece and he knew
them to be living together for 13 or 14 years. He said the couple was always
quarreling. Marivic confided in him that Ben would pawn items and then would
use the money to gamble. One time, he went to their house and they were
quarreling. Ben was so angry, but would be pacified ‘if somebody would come.’
He testified that while Ben was alive ‘he used to gamble and when he became
drunk, he would go to our house and he will say, ‘Teody’ because that was what
he used to call me, ‘mokimas ta,’ which means ‘let’s go and look for a whore.’
Mr. Sarabia further testified that Ben ‘would box his wife and I would see
bruises and one time she ran to me, I noticed a wound (the witness pointed to
his right breast) as according to her a knife was stricken to her.’ Mr.
Sarabia also said that once he saw Ben had been injured too. He said he
voluntarily testified only that morning.
‘7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old
student, who is a cousin of Marivic, testified that in the afternoon of
November 15, 1995, Marivic went to her house and asked her help to look for
Ben. They searched in the market place, several taverns and some other places,
but could not find him. She accompanied Marivic home. Marivic wanted her to
sleep with her in the Genosa house ‘because she might be battered by her
husband.’ When they got to the Genosa house at about 7:00 in the evening, Miss
Arano said that ‘her husband was already there and was drunk.’ Miss Arano knew
he was drunk ‘because of his staggering walking and I can also detect his
face.’ Marivic entered the house and she heard them quarrel noisily. (Again,
please note that this is the same night as that testified to by Arturo Basobas)
Miss Arano testified that this was not the first time Marivic had asked her to
sleep in the house as Marivic would be afraid every time her husband would come
home drunk. At one time when she did sleep over, she was awakened at 10:00 in
the evening when Ben arrived because the couple ‘were very noisy in the sala
and I had heard something was broken like a vase.’ She said Marivic ran into
her room and they locked the door. When Ben couldn’t get in he got a chair and
a knife and ‘showed us the knife through the window grill and he scared us.’
She said that Marivic shouted for help, but no one came. On cross-examination,
she said that when she left Marivic’s house on November 15, 1995, the couple
were still quarreling.
‘7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician
testified that he and Marivic were co-employees at PHILPHOS, Isabel, Leyte.
Marivic was his patient ‘many times’ and had also received treatment from other
doctors. Dr. Caing testified that from July 6, 1989 until November 9, 1995,
there were six (6) episodes of physical injuries inflicted upon Marivic. These
injuries were reported in his Out-Patient Chart at the PHILPHOS Hospital. The
prosecution admitted the qualifications of Dr. Caing and considered him an
expert witness.’
x x x x
x x x x x
‘Dr. Caing’s clinical history of the tension
headache and hypertention of Marivic on twenty-three (23) separate occasions
was marked at Exhibits ‘2’ and ‘2-B.’ The OPD Chart of Marivic at the Philphos
Clinic which reflected all the consultations made by Marivic and the six (6)
incidents of physical injuries reported was marked as Exhibit ‘3.’
“On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that
he is not a psychiatrist, he could not say whether the injuries were directly
related to the crime committed. He said it is only a psychiatrist who is
qualified to examine the psychological make-up of the patient, ‘whether she is
capable of committing a crime or not.’
‘7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay
captain in the place where the Genosas resided, testified that about two (2)
months before Ben died, Marivic went to his office past 8:00 in the evening.
She sought his help to settle or confront the Genosa couple who were
experiencing ‘family troubles’. He told Marivic to return in the morning, but
he did not hear from her again and assumed ‘that they might have settled with
each other or they might have forgiven with each other.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Marivic said she did not provoke her
husband when she got home that night it was her husband who began the
provocation. Marivic said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her
and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In fact,
Marivic had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was
suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on
December 1, 1995.
“Marivic testified that during her marriage
she had tried to leave her husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben would
always follow her and they would reconcile. Marivic said that the reason why
Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because ‘he was crazy
about his recent girlfriend, Lulu x x x Rubillos.’
“On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she
shot Ben with a gun; she said that he died in the bedroom; that their quarrels
could be heard by anyone passing their house; that Basobas lied in his
testimony; that she left for Manila the next day, November 16, 1995; that she
did not bother anyone in Manila, rented herself a room, and got herself a job
as a field researcher under the alias ‘Marvelous Isidro’; she did not tell
anyone that she was leaving Leyte, she just wanted to have a safe delivery of
her baby; and that she was arrested in San Pablo, Laguna.
‘Answering questions from the Court,
Marivic said that she threw the gun away; that she did not know what happened
to the pipe she used to ‘smash him once’; that she was wounded by Ben on her
wrist with the bolo; and that two (2) hours after she was ‘whirled’ by Ben, he
kicked her ‘ass’ and dragged her towards the drawer when he saw that she had
packed his things.’
“9. The body of Ben Genosa was
found on November 18, 1995 after an investigation was made of the foul odor
emitting from the Genosa residence. This fact was testified to by all the
prosecution witnesses and some defense witnesses during the trial.
“10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a
physician, was the Municipal Health Officer of Isabel, Leyte at the time of the
incident, and among her responsibilities as such was to take charge of all
medico-legal cases, such as the examination of cadavers and the autopsy of
cadavers. Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic pathologist. She merely took
the medical board exams and passed in 1986. She was called by the police to go
to the Genosa residence and when she got there, she saw ‘some police officer
and neighbor around.’ She saw Ben Genosa, covered by a blanket, lying in a
semi-prone position with his back to the door. He was wearing only a brief.
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dra. Cerillo said that ‘there is only one
injury and that is the injury involving the skeletal area of the head’ which
she described as a ‘fracture’. And that based on her examination, Ben had been
dead 2 or 3 days. Dra. Cerillo did not testify as to what caused his
death.
“Dra. Cerillo was not cross-examined by
defense counsel.
“11. The Information, dated
November 14, 1996, filed against Marivic Genosa charged her with the crime of
PARRICIDE committed ‘with intent to kill, with treachery and evidence
premeditation, x x x wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit
and wound x x x her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon x
x x which caused his death.’
“12. Trial took place on 7 and
14 April 1997, 14 May 1997, 21 July 1997, 17, 22 and 23 September 1997, 12
November 1997, 15 and 16 December 1997, 22 May 1998, and 5 and 6 August 1998.
“13. On 23 September 1998, or
only fifty (50) days from the day of the last trial date, the Hon. Fortunito L.
Madrona, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City, rendered a JUDGMENT
finding Marivic guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ of the crime of parricide, and
further found treachery as an aggravating circumstance, thus sentencing her to
the ultimate penalty of DEATH.
“14. The case was elevated to
this Honorable Court upon automatic review and, under date of 24 January 2000,
Marivic’s trial lawyer, Atty. Gil Marvel P. Tabucanon, filed a Motion to
Withdraw as counsel, attaching thereto, as a precautionary measure, two (2)
drafts of Appellant’s Briefs he had prepared for Marivic which, for reasons of
her own, were not conformed to by her.
“The Honorable Court allowed the withdrawal
of Atty. Tabucanon and permitted the entry of appearance of undersigned
counsel.
“15. Without the knowledge of counsel,
Marivic Genosa wrote a letter dated 20 January 2000, to the Chief Justice,
coursing the same through Atty. Teresita G. Dimaisip, Deputy Clerk of Court of
Chief Judicial Records Office, wherein she submitted her ‘Brief without
counsels’ to the Court.
“This letter was stamp-received by the
Honorable Court on 4 February 2000.
“16. In the meantime, under date
of 17 February 2000, and stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 19 February
2000, undersigned counsel filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION praying that the
Honorable Court allow the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-examination of
the cause of his death; allow the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified
psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she
killed her husband; and finally, to allow a partial re-opening of the case a
quo to take the testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists.
“Attached to the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION
was a letter of Dr. Raquel Fortun, then the only qualified forensic pathologist
in the country, who opined that the description of the death wound (as culled
from the post-mortem findings, Exhibit ‘A’) is more akin to a gunshot wound
than a beating with a lead pipe.
“17. In a RESOLUTION dated 29
September 2000, the Honorable Court partly granted Marivic’s URGENT OMNIBUS
MOTION and remanded the case ‘to the trial court for the reception of expert
psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the ‘battered woman syndrome’ plea,
within ninety (90) days from notice, and, thereafter to forthwith report to
this Court the proceedings taken, together with the copies of the TSN and
relevant documentary evidence, if any, submitted.’
“18. On 15 January 2001, Dra.
Natividad A. Dayan appeared and testified before the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona,
RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.
“Immediately before Dra. Dayan was sworn,
the Court a quo asked if she had interviewed Marivic Genosa.
Dra. Dayan informed the Court that interviews were done at the Penal
Institution in 1999, but that the clinical interviews and psychological assessment
were done at her clinic.
“Dra. Dayan testified that she has been a
clinical psychologist for twenty (20) years with her own private clinic and
connected presently to the De La Salle University as a professor. Before this,
she was the Head of the Psychology Department of the Assumption College; a
member of the faculty of Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila University and St.
Joseph’s College; and was the counseling psychologist of the National Defense
College. She has an AB in Psychology from the University of the Philippines, a
Master of Arts in Clinical [Counseling], Psychology from the Ateneo, and a PhD
from the U.P. She was the past president of the Psychological Association of
the Philippines and is a member of the American Psychological Association. She
is the secretary of the International Council of Psychologists from about 68
countries; a member of the Forensic Psychology Association; and a member of the
ASEAN [Counseling] Association. She is actively involved with the Philippine
Judicial Academy, recently lecturing on the socio-demographic and psychological
profile of families involved in domestic violence and nullity cases. She was
with the Davide Commission doing research about Military Psychology. She has
written a book entitled ‘Energy Global Psychology’ (together with Drs. Allan
Tan and Allan Bernardo). The Genosa case is the first time she has testified
as an expert on battered women as this is the first case of that nature.
“Dra. Dayan testified that for the research
she conducted, on the socio-demographic and psychological profile of families
involved in domestic violence, and nullity cases, she looked at about 500 cases
over a period of ten (10) years and discovered that ‘there are lots of
variables that cause all of this marital conflicts, from domestic violence to
infidelity, to psychiatric disorder.’
“Dra. Dayan described domestic violence to
comprise of ‘a lot of incidents of psychological abuse, verbal abuse, and
emotional abuse to physical abuse and also sexual abuse.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dra. Dayan testified that in her studies,
‘the battered woman usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has a
self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x they usually think
very lowly of themselves and so when the violence would happen, they usually
think that they provoke it, that they were the one who precipitated the
violence, they provoke their spouse to be physically, verbally and even
sexually abusive to them.’ Dra. Dayan said that usually a battered x x x comes
from a dysfunctional family or from ‘broken homes.’
“Dra. Dayan said that the batterer, just
like the battered woman, ‘also has a very low opinion of himself. But then
emerges to have superiority complex and it comes out as being very arrogant,
very hostile, very aggressive and very angry. They also had (sic) a very low
tolerance for frustrations. A lot of times they are involved in vices like
gambling, drinking and drugs. And they become violent.’ The batterer also
usually comes from a dysfunctional family which over-pampers them and makes
them feel entitled to do anything. Also, they see often how their parents
abused each other so ‘there is a lot of modeling of aggression in the family.’
“Dra. Dayan testified that there are a lot
of reasons why a battered woman does not leave her husband: poverty,
self-blame and guilt that she provoked the violence, the cycle itself which
makes her hope her husband will change, the belief in her obligations to keep
the family intact at all costs for the sake of the children.
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dra. Dayan said that abused wives react
differently to the violence: some leave the house, or lock themselves in
another room, or sometimes try to fight back triggering ‘physical violence on
both of them.’ She said that in a ‘normal marital relationship,’ abuses also
happen, but these are ‘not consistent, not chronic, are not happening day in
[and] day out.’ In an ‘abnormal marital relationship,’ the abuse occurs day in
and day out, is long lasting and ‘even would cause hospitalization on the
victim and even death on the victim.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dra. Dayan said that as a result of the
battery of psychological tests she administered, it was her opinion that
Marivic fits the profile of a battered woman because ‘inspite of her feeling of
self-confidence which we can see at times there are really feeling (sic) of
loss, such feelings of humiliation which she sees herself as damaged and as a
broken person. And at the same time she still has the imprint of all the
abuses that she had experienced in the past.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dra. Dayan said Marivic thought of herself
as a loving wife and did not even consider filing for nullity or legal
separation inspite of the abuses. It was at the time of the tragedy that
Marivic then thought of herself as a victim.
x x x x
x x x x x
“19. On 9 February 2001, Dr.
Alfredo Pajarillo, a physician, who has since passed away, appeared and
testified before RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.
“Dr. Pajarillo was a Diplomate of the
Philippine Board of Psychiatry; a Fellow of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry
and a Fellow of the Philippine Psychiatry Association. He was in the practice
of psychiatry for thirty-eight (38) years. Prior to being in private practice,
he was connected with the Veterans Memorial Medical Centre where he gained his
training on psychiatry and neurology. After that, he was called to active duty
in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, assigned to the V. Luna Medical Center
for twenty six (26) years. Prior to his retirement from government service, he
obtained the rank of Brigadier General. He obtained his medical degree from
the University of Santo Tomas. He was also a member of the World Association
of Military Surgeons; the Quezon City Medical Society; the Cagayan Medical
Society; and the Philippine Association of Military Surgeons.
“He authored ‘The Comparative Analysis of
Nervous Breakdown in the Philippine Military Academy from the Period 1954 –
1978’ which was presented twice in international congresses. He also authored
‘The Mental Health of the Armed Forces of the Philippines 2000’, which was
likewise published internationally and locally. He had a medical textbook
published on the use of Prasepam on a Parke-Davis grant; was the first to use
Enanthate (siquiline), on an E.R. Squibb grant; and he published the use of the
drug Zopiclom in 1985-86.
“Dr. Pajarillo explained that psychiatry
deals with the functional disorder of the mind and neurology deals with the
ailment of the brain and spinal cord enlarged. Psychology, on the other hand,
is a bachelor degree and a doctorate degree; while one has to finish medicine
to become a specialist in psychiatry.
“Even only in his 7th year as a resident in
V. Luna Medical Centre, Dr. Pajarillo had already encountered a suit involving
violent family relations, and testified in a case in 1964. In the Armed Forces
of the Philippines, violent family disputes abound, and he has seen probably
ten to twenty thousand cases. In those days, the primordial intention of
therapy was reconciliation. As a result of his experience with domestic
violence cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office in Quezon
City under Atty. Nenita Deproza.
“As such consultant, he had seen around
forty (40) cases of severe domestic violence, where there is physical abuse:
such as slapping, pushing, verbal abuse, battering and boxing a woman even to
an unconscious state such that the woman is sometimes confined. The affliction
of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ‘depends on the vulnerability of the
victim.’ Dr. Pajarillo said that if the victim is not very healthy, perhaps
one episode of violence may induce the disorder; if the psychological stamina
and physiologic constitutional stamina of the victim is stronger, ‘it will take
more repetitive trauma to precipitate the post-traumatic stress disorder and
this x x x is very dangerous.’
“In psychiatry, the post-traumatic stress
disorder is incorporated under the ‘anxiety neurosis or neurologic
anxcietism.’ It is produced by ‘overwhelming brutality, trauma.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dr. Pajarillo explained that with
‘neurotic anxiety’, the victim relives the beating or trauma as if it were
real, although she is not actually being beaten at that time. She thinks ‘of
nothing but the suffering.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“A woman who suffers battery has a
tendency to become neurotic, her emotional tone is unstable, and she is
irritable and restless. She tends to become hard-headed and persistent. She
has higher sensitivity and her ‘self-world’ is damaged.
“Dr. Pajarillo said that an abnormal
family background relates to an individual’s illness, such as the deprivation
of the continuous care and love of the parents. As to the batterer, he
normally ‘internalizes what is around him within the environment.’ And it
becomes his own personality. He is very competitive; he is aiming high all the
time; he is so macho; he shows his strong façade ‘but in it there are doubts in
himself and prone to act without thinking.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dr. Pajarillo emphasized that ‘even though
without the presence of the precipator (sic) or the one who administered the
battering, that re-experiencing of the trauma occurred (sic) because the
individual cannot control it. It will just come up in her mind or in his
mind.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dr. Pajarillo said that a woman suffering
post traumatic stress disorder try to defend themselves, and ‘primarily with
knives. Usually pointed weapons or any weapon that is available in the
immediate surrounding or in a hospital x x x because that abound in the
household.’ He said a victim resorts to weapons when she has ‘reached the
lowest rock bottom of her life and there is no other recourse left on her but
to act decisively.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“Dr. Pajarillo testified that he met Marivic
Genosa in his office in an interview he conducted for two (2) hours and
seventeen (17) minutes. He used the psychological evaluation and social case
studies as a help in forming his diagnosis. He came out with a Psychiatric
Report, dated 22 January 2001.
x x x x
x x x x x
“On cross-examination by the private
prosecutor, Dr. Pajarillo said that at the time she killed her husband
Marivic’c mental condition was that she was ‘re-experiencing the trauma.’ He
said ‘that we are trying to explain scientifically that the re-experiencing of
the trauma is not controlled by Marivic. It will just come in flashes and
probably at that point in time that things happened when the re-experiencing of
the trauma flashed in her mind.’ At the time he interviewed Marivic ‘she
was more subdued, she was not super alert anymore x x x she is mentally stress
(sic) because of the predicament she is involved.’
x x x x
x x x x x
“20. No rebuttal evidence or
testimony was presented by either the private or the public prosecutor. Thus,
in accord with the Resolution of this Honorable Court, the records of the
partially re-opened trial a quo were elevated.”[9]
Ruling of the Trial Court
Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave
credence to the prosecution evidence that appellant had killed the deceased
while he was in bed sleeping. Further, the trial court appreciated the
generic aggravating circumstance of treachery, because Ben Genosa was
supposedly defenseless when he was killed -- lying in bed asleep when Marivic
smashed him with a pipe at the back of his head.
The capital penalty having been imposed, the case was elevated to
this Court for automatic review.
Supervening Circumstances
On February 19, 2000, appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion
praying that this Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the
reexamination of the cause of his death; (2) the examination of appellant by
qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the
time she had killed her spouse; and (3) the inclusion of the said experts’
reports in the records of the case for purposes of the automatic review or, in
the alternative, a partial reopening of the case for the lower court to admit
the experts’ testimonies.
On September 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution granting in
part appellant’s Motion, remanding the case to the trial court for the
reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the “battered
woman syndrome” plea; and requiring the lower court to report thereafter to
this Court the proceedings taken as well as to submit copies of the TSN and
additional evidence, if any.
Acting on the Court’s Resolution, the trial judge authorized the
examination of Marivic by two clinical psychologists, Drs. Natividad Dayan[10]
and Alfredo Pajarillo,[11]
supposedly experts on domestic violence. Their testimonies, along with their
documentary evidence, were then presented to and admitted by the lower court
before finally being submitted to this Court to form part of the records of the
case.[12]
The Issues
Appellant assigns the following alleged errors of the trial court
for this Court’s consideration:
“1. The trial court gravely
erred in promulgating an obviously hasty decision without reflecting on the
evidence adduced as to self-defense.
“2. The trial court gravely
erred in finding as a fact that Ben and Marivic Genosa were legally married and
that she was therefore liable for parricide.
“3. The trial court gravely
erred finding the cause of death to be by beating with a pipe.
“4. The trial court gravely
erred in ignoring and disregarding evidence adduced from impartial and unbiased
witnesses that Ben Genosa was a drunk, a gambler, a womanizer and wife-beater;
and further gravely erred in concluding that Ben Genosa was a battered husband.
“5. The trial court gravely
erred in not requiring testimony from the children of Marivic Genosa.
“6. The trial court gravely
erred in concluding that Marivic’s flight to Manila and her subsequent
apologies were indicia of guilt, instead of a clear attempt to save the life of
her unborn child.
“7. The trial court gravely
erred in concluding that there was an aggravating circumstance of treachery.
“8. The trial court gravely
erred in refusing to re-evaluate the traditional elements in determining the
existence of self-defense and defense of foetus in this case, thereby
erroneously convicting Marivic Genosa of the crime of parricide and condemning
her to the ultimate penalty of death.”[13]
In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1)
whether appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2)
whether treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is partly meritorious.
Collateral Factual Issues
The first six assigned errors raised by appellant are factual in
nature, if not collateral to the resolution of the principal issues. As
consistently held by this Court, the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to a high degree of
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that
the trial judge gravely abused his discretion or overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied material facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could
affect the outcome of the case.[14]
In appellant’s first six assigned items, we find no grave abuse
of discretion, reversible error or misappreciation of material facts that would
reverse or modify the trial court’s disposition of the case. In any event, we
will now briefly dispose of these alleged errors of the trial court.
First, we do not agree that the lower court promulgated
“an obviously hasty decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to
self-defense.” We note that in his 17-page Decision, Judge Fortunito L.
Madrona summarized the testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense
witnesses and -- on the basis of those and of the documentary evidence on
record -- made his evaluation, findings and conclusions. He wrote a 3-page
discourse assessing the testimony and the self-defense theory of the accused.
While she, or even this Court, may not agree with the trial judge’s
conclusions, we cannot peremptorily conclude, absent substantial evidence, that
he failed to reflect on the evidence presented.
Neither do we find the appealed Decision to have been made in an
“obviously hasty” manner. The Information had been filed with the lower court
on November 14, 1996. Thereafter, trial began and at least 13 hearings were
held for over a year. It took the trial judge about two months from the
conclusion of trial to promulgate his judgment. That he conducted the trial
and resolved the case with dispatch should not be taken against him, much less
used to condemn him for being unduly hasty. If at all, the dispatch with which
he handled the case should be lauded. In any case, we find his actions in
substantial compliance with his constitutional obligation.[15]
Second, the lower court did not err in finding as a fact
that Ben Genosa and appellant had been legally married, despite the
non-presentation of their marriage contract. In People v. Malabago,[16]
this Court held:
“The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender
with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the
relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate.
In the absence of a marriage certificate, however, oral evidence of the fact of
marriage may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected
to.”
Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the
brother of appellant’s deceased spouse -- attested in court that Ben had been
married to Marivic.[17] The
defense raised no objection to these testimonies. Moreover, during her direct
examination, appellant herself made a judicial admission of her marriage to
Ben.[18]
Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party
making it, except only when there is a showing that (1) the admission was made
through a palpable mistake, or (2) no admission was in fact made.[19]
Other than merely attacking the non-presentation of the marriage contract, the
defense offered no proof that the admission made by appellant in court as to
the fact of her marriage to the deceased was made through a palpable mistake.
Third, under the circumstances of this case, the specific
or direct cause of Ben’s death -- whether by a gunshot or by beating with a
pipe -- has no legal consequence. As the Court elucidated in its September 29,
2000 Resolution, “[c]onsidering that the appellant has admitted the fact of
killing her husband and the acts of hitting his nape with a metal pipe and of
shooting him at the back of his head, the Court believes that exhumation is
unnecessary, if not immaterial, to determine which of said acts actually
caused the victim’s death.” Determining which of these admitted acts
caused the death is not dispositive of the guilt or defense of appellant.
Fourth, we cannot fault the trial court for not fully
appreciating evidence that Ben was a drunk, gambler, womanizer and
wife-beater. Until this case came to us for automatic review, appellant had
not raised the novel defense of “battered woman syndrome,” for which such
evidence may have been relevant. Her theory of self-defense was then the
crucial issue before the trial court. As will be discussed shortly, the legal
requisites of self-defense under prevailing jurisprudence ostensibly appear
inconsistent with the surrounding facts that led to the death of the victim.
Hence, his personal character, especially his past behavior, did not constitute
vital evidence at the time.
Fifth, the trial court surely committed no error in not
requiring testimony from appellant’s children. As correctly elucidated by the
solicitor general, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and
control of the public prosecutor, in whom lies the discretion to determine
which witnesses and evidence are necessary to present.[20]
As the former further points out, neither the trial court nor the prosecution prevented
appellant from presenting her children as witnesses. Thus, she cannot now
fault the lower court for not requiring them to testify.
Finally, merely collateral or
corroborative is the matter of whether the flight of Marivic to Manila and her
subsequent apologies to her brother-in-law are indicia of her guilt or are
attempts to save the life of her unborn child. Any reversible error as to the
trial court’s appreciation of these circumstances has little bearing on the
final resolution of the case.
First Legal Issue:
Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus
Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa
but, to avoid criminal liability, invokes self-defense and/or defense of her
unborn child. When the accused admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon
her to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing
evidence.[21]
Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense (and similarly,
defense of a stranger or third person) shifts the burden of proof from the
prosecution to the defense.[22]
The Battered
Woman Syndrome
In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of
the battered woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the
concept has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense
or, at the least, incomplete self-defense.[23] By appreciating
evidence that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the syndrome, foreign
courts convey their “understanding of the justifiably fearful state of mind of
a person who has been cyclically abused and controlled over a period of time.”[24]
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.”[25]
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,”[27] which
has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering
incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.[28]
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.
However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to
placate him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse
worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing
tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman
soon withdraws emotionally. But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable,
the more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some
unpredictable point, the violence “spirals out of control” and leads to an
acute battering incident.[29]
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.
At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and
the terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail. Her
apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the
batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past
painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents
are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or
intervenors are likely to get hurt.[30]
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.
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of
the emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair,
she feels responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the
chances of his reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help, are very
slim, especially if she remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him
does he seek professional help as a way of getting her back. Yet, it is in
this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly tormented
psychologically.
The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a
battered woman’s psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are indeed
emotionally dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant behavior, he for
her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of “tension, violence and
forgiveness,” each partner may believe that it is better to die than to be
separated. Neither one may really feel independent, capable of functioning
without the other.[31]
History
of Abuse
in the Present Case
To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the
defense presented several witnesses. She herself described her heart-rending
experience as follows:
“ATTY. TABUCANON
Q How did you describe your marriage with Ben Genosa?
A In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the
subsequent year he was cruel to me and a behavior of habitual drinker.
Q You said that in the subsequent year of your marriage, your
husband was abusive to you and cruel. In what way was this abusive and cruelty
manifested to you?
A He always provoke me in everything, he always slap me and
sometimes he pinned me down on the bed and sometimes beat me.
Q How many times did this happen?
A Several times already.
Q What did you do when these things happen to you?
A I went away to my mother and I ran to my father and we
separate each other.
Q What was the action of Ben Genosa towards you leaving home?
A He is following me, after that he sought after me.
Q What will happen when he follow you?
A He said he changed, he asked for forgiveness and I was
convinced and after that I go to him and he said ‘sorry’.
Q During those times that you were the recipient of such cruelty
and abusive behavior by your husband, were you able to see a doctor?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who are these doctors?
A The company physician, Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra.
Cerillo.
x x x x
x x x x x
Q You said that you saw a doctor in relation to your injuries?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who inflicted these injuries?
A Of course my husband.
Q You mean Ben Genosa?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x
x x x x x
[Court] /to the witness
Q How frequent was the alleged cruelty that you said?
A Everytime he got drunk.
Q No, from the time that you said the cruelty or the infliction
of injury inflicted on your occurred, after your marriage, from that time on,
how frequent was the occurrence?
A Everytime he got drunk.
Q Is it daily, weekly, monthly or how many times in a month or
in a week?
A Three times a week.
Q Do you mean three times a week he would beat you?
A Not necessarily that he would beat me but sometimes he will
just quarrel me.” [32]
Referring to his “Out-Patient Chart”[33]
on Marivic Genosa at the Philphos Hospital, Dr. Dino D. Caing bolstered her
foregoing testimony on chronic battery in this manner:
“Q So, do you have a summary of those six (6) incidents which are
found in the chart of your clinic?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who prepared the list of six (6) incidents, Doctor?
A I did.
Q Will you please read the physical findings together with the dates
for the record.
A 1. May 12, 1990 - physical findings are as follows:
Hematoma (R) lower eyelid and redness of eye. Attending physician: Dr. Lucero;
2. March 10, 1992 -
Contusion-Hematoma (L) lower arbital area, pain and contusion (R) breast.
Attending physician: Dr. Canora;
3. March 26, 1993 - Abrasion,
Furuncle (L) Axilla;
4. August 1, 1994 - Pain, mastitis
(L) breast, 2o to trauma.
Attending physician: Dr. Caing;
5. April 17, 1995 - Trauma,
tenderness (R) Shoulder. Attending physician: Dr. Canora; and
6. June 5, 1995 - Swelling Abrasion
(L) leg, multiple contusion Pregnancy. Attending physician: Dr. Canora.
Q Among the findings, there were two (2) incidents wherein you
were the attending physician, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you actually physical examine the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, going to your finding no. 3 where you were the one who
attended the patient. What do you mean by abrasion furuncle left axilla?
A Abrasion is a skin wound usually when it comes in contact
with something rough substance if force is applied.
Q What is meant by furuncle axilla?
A It is secondary of the light infection over the abrasion.
Q What is meant by pain mastitis secondary to trauma?
A So, in this 4th episode of physical injuries there is an
inflammation of left breast. So, [pain] meaning there is tenderness. When
your breast is traumatized, there is tenderness pain.
Q So, these are objective physical injuries. Doctor?
x x x x
x x x x x
Q Were you able to talk with the patient?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did she tell you?
A As a doctor-patient relationship, we need to know the cause
of these injuries. And she told me that it was done to her by her husband.
Q You mean, Ben Genosa?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x
x x x x x
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q By the way Doctor, were you able to physical examine the accused
sometime in the month of November, 1995 when this incident happened?
A As per record, yes.
Q What was the date?
A It was on November 6, 1995.
Q So, did you actually see the accused physically?
A Yes, sir.
Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable
Court, was the patient pregnant?
A Yes, sir.
Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of pregnancy
was she?
A Eight (8) months pregnant.
Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an
examination about her pregnancy or for some other findings?
A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which
complicates her pregnancy.
Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined?
A Yes, sir.
Q For how many days?
A One day.
Q Where?
A At PHILPHOS Hospital.
x x x x
x x x x x
Q Lets go back to the clinical history of Marivic Genosa. You
said that you were able to examine her personally on November 6, 1995 and she
was 8 months pregnant.
What is this all about?
A Because she has this problem of tension headache secondary to
hypertension and I think I have a record here, also the same period from 1989
to 1995, she had a consultation for twenty-three (23) times.
Q For what?
A Tension headache.
Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that
the patient had hypertension?
A The patient definitely had hypertension. It was refractory
to our treatment. She does not response when the medication was given to her,
because tension headache is more or less stress related and emotional in
nature.
Q What did you deduce of tension headache when you said is
emotional in nature?
A From what I deduced as part of our physical examination of
the patient is the family history in line of giving the root cause of what is
causing this disease. So, from the moment you ask to the patient all comes
from the domestic problem.
Q You mean problem in her household?
A Probably.
Q Can family trouble cause elevation of blood pressure, Doctor?
A Yes, if it is emotionally related and stressful it can cause
increases in hypertension which is unfortunately does not response to the
medication.
Q In November 6, 1995, the date of the incident, did you take
the blood pressure of the accused?
A On November 6, 1995 consultation, the blood pressure was
180/120.
Q Is this considered hypertension?
A Yes, sir, severe.
Q Considering that she was 8 months pregnant, you mean this is
dangerous level of blood pressure?
A It was dangerous to the child or to the fetus.” [34]
Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of
the Genosas in Isabel, Leyte, testified that he had seen the couple quarreling
several times; and that on some occasions Marivic would run to him with
bruises, confiding that the injuries were inflicted upon her by Ben.[35]
Ecel Arano also testified[36] that
for a number of times she had been asked by Marivic to sleep at the Genosa
house, because the latter feared that Ben would come home drunk and hurt her.
On one occasion that Ecel did sleep over, she was awakened about ten o’clock at
night, because the couple “were very noisy … and I heard something was broken
like a vase.” Then Marivic came running into Ecel’s room and locked the door.
Ben showed up by the window grill atop a chair, scaring them with a knife.
On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again asked her
help -- this time to find Ben -- but they were unable to. They returned to the
Genosa home, where they found him already drunk. Again afraid that he might
hurt her, Marivic asked her to sleep at their house. Seeing his state of
drunkenness, Ecel hesitated; and when she heard the couple start arguing, she
decided to leave.
On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben Genosa, at
least three other witnesses saw or heard the couple quarreling.[37] Marivic relates in detail the
following backdrop of the fateful night when life was snuffed out of him,
showing in the process a vivid picture of his cruelty towards her:
“ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Please tell this Court, can you recall the incident in
November 15, 1995 in the evening?
A Whole morning and in the afternoon, I was in the office
working then after office hours, I boarded the service bus and went to
Bilwang. When I reached Bilwang, I immediately asked my son, where was his
father, then my second child said, ‘he was not home yet’. I was worried
because that was payday, I was anticipating that he was gambling. So while
waiting for him, my eldest son arrived from school, I prepared dinner for my
children.
Q This is evening of November 15, 1995?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time did Ben Genosa arrive?
A When he arrived, I was not there, I was in Isabel looking for
him.
Q So when he arrived you were in Isabel looking for him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you come back to your house?
A Yes, sir.
Q By the way, where was your conjugal residence situated this
time?
A Bilwang.
Q Is this your house or you are renting?
A Renting.
Q What time were you able to come back in your residence at
Bilwang?
A I went back around almost 8:00 o’clock.
Q What happened when you arrived in your residence?
A When I arrived home with my cousin Ecel whom I requested to
sleep with me at that time because I had fears that he was again drunk and I
was worried that he would again beat me so I requested my cousin to sleep with
me, but she resisted because she had fears that the same thing will happen
again last year.
Q Who was this cousin of yours who you requested to sleep with
you?
A Ecel Araño, the one who testified.
Q Did Ecel sleep with you in your house on that evening?
A No, because she expressed fears, she said her father would
not allow her because of Ben.
Q During this period November 15, 1995, were you pregnant?
A Yes, 8 months.
Q How advance was your pregnancy?
A Eight (8) months.
Q Was the baby subsequently born?
A Yes, sir.
Q What’s the name of the baby you were carrying at that time?
A Marie Bianca.
Q What time were you able to meet personally your husband?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time?
A When I arrived home, he was there already in his usual
behavior.
Q Will you tell this Court what was his disposition?
A He was drunk again, he was yelling in his usual unruly
behavior.
Q What was he yelling all about?
A His usual attitude when he got drunk.
Q You said that when you arrived, he was drunk and yelling at
you? What else did he do if any?
A He is nagging at me for following him and he dared me to
quarrel him.
Q What was the cause of his nagging or quarreling at you if you
know?
A He was angry at me because I was following x x x him, looking
for him. I was just worried he might be overly drunk and he would beat me
again.
Q You said that he was yelling at you, what else, did he do to
you if any?
A He was nagging at me at that time and I just ignore him
because I want to avoid trouble for fear that he will beat me again. Perhaps
he was disappointed because I just ignore him of his provocation and he switch
off the light and I said to him, ‘why did you switch off the light when the
children were there.’ At that time I was also attending to my children who
were doing their assignments. He was angry with me for not answering his
challenge, so he went to the kitchen and [got] a bolo and cut the antenna wire
to stop me from watching television.
Q What did he do with the bolo?
A He cut the antenna wire to keep me from watching T.V.
Q What else happened after he cut the wire?
A He switch off the light and the children were shouting
because they were scared and he was already holding the bolo.
Q How do you described this bolo?
A 1 1/2 feet.
Q What was the bolo used for usually?
A For chopping meat.
Q You said the children were scared, what else happened as Ben
was carrying that bolo?
A He was about to attack me so I run to the room.
Q What do you mean that he was about to attack you?
A When I attempt to run he held my hands and he whirled me and
I fell to the bedside.
Q So when he whirled you, what happened to you?
A I screamed for help and then he left.
Q You said earlier that he whirled you and you fell on the
bedside?
A Yes, sir.
Q You screamed for help and he left, do you know where he was
going?
A Outside perhaps to drink more.
Q When he left what did you do in that particular time?
A I packed all his clothes.
Q What was your reason in packing his clothes?
A I wanted him to leave us.
Q During this time, where were your children, what were their
reactions?
A After a couple of hours, he went back again and he got angry
with me for packing his clothes, then he dragged me again of the bedroom
holding my neck.
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged
you? How did he drag you?
COURT INTERPRETER:
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand
flexed forcibly in her front neck)
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Where did he bring you?
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then
he kept on shouting at me that ‘you might as well be killed so there will be
nobody to nag me.’
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is there in the drawer?
A I was aware that it was a gun.
COURT INTERPRETER:
(At this juncture the witness started crying).
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the
drawer but he could not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled
his wallet which contained a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that he
was going to kill me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade
fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long,
and when he was about to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I
ran to the other room, and on that very moment everything on my mind was to
pity on myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the same when I
was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit.
COURT INTERPRETER:
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
x x x x
x x x x x
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Talking of drawer, is this drawer outside your room?
A Outside.
Q In what part of the house?
A Dining.
Q Where were the children during that time?
A My children were already asleep.
Q You mean they were inside the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you
please describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
A Three (3) inches long and 1/2 inch wide.
Q Is it a flexible blade?
A It’s a cutter.
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
Q How did he do it?
A He wanted to cut my throat.
Q With the same blade?
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.” [38]
In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to
testify as an expert witness to assist it in understanding the psyche of a
battered person. She had met with Marivic Genosa for five sessions totaling
about seventeen hours. Based on their talks, the former briefly related the
latter’s ordeal to the court a quo as follows:
“Q: What can you say, that you found Marivic as a battered wife?
Could you in layman’s term describe to this Court what her life was like as
said to you?
A: What I remember happened then was it was more than ten years,
that she was suffering emotional anguish. There were a lot of instances of
abuses, to emotional abuse, to verbal abuse and to physical abuse. The husband
had a very meager income, she was the one who was practically the bread earner
of the family. The husband was involved in a lot of vices, going out with
barkadas, drinking, even womanizing being involved in cockfight and going home
very angry and which will trigger a lot of physical abuse. She also had the
experience a lot of taunting from the husband for the reason that the husband
even accused her of infidelity, the husband was saying that the child she was carrying
was not his own. So she was very angry, she was at the same time very
depressed because she was also aware, almost like living in purgatory or even
hell when it was happening day in and day out.” [39]
In cross-examining Dra. Dayan, the public prosecutor not merely
elicited, but wittingly or unwittingly put forward, additional supporting
evidence as shown below:
“Q In your first encounter with the appellant in this case in
1999, where you talked to her about three hours, what was the most relevant information
did you gather?
A The most relevant information was the tragedy that happened.
The most important information were escalating abuses that she had experienced
during her marital life.
Q Before you met her in 1999 for three hours, we presume that you
already knew of the facts of the case or at least you have substantial
knowledge of the facts of the case?
A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not know
whether I can consider them as substantial.
x x x x
x x x x x
Q Did you gather an information from Marivic that on the side of
her husband they were fond of battering their wives?
A I also heard that from her?
Q You heard that from her?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ask for a complete example who are the relatives of
her husband that were fond of battering their wives?
A What I remember that there were brothers of her husband who
are also battering their wives.
Q Did she not inform you that there was an instance that she
stayed in a hotel in Ormoc where her husband followed her and battered [her]
several times in that room?
A She told me about that.
Q Did she inform you in what hotel in Ormoc?
A Sir, I could not remember but I was told that she was
battered in that room.
Q Several times in that room?
A Yes, sir. What I remember was that there is no problem about
being battered, it really happened.
Q Being an expert witness, our jurisprudence is not complete on
saying this matter. I think that is the first time that we have this in the
Philippines, what is your opinion?
A Sir, my opinion is, she is really a battered wife and in this
kind happened, it was really a self-defense. I also believe that there had
been provocation and I also believe that she became a disordered person. She
had to suffer anxiety reaction because of all the battering that happened and
so she became an abnormal person who had lost she’s not during the time and
that is why it happened because of all the physical battering, emotional
battering, all the psychological abuses that she had experienced from her
husband.
Q I do believe that she is a battered wife. Was she extremely
battered?
A Sir, it is an extreme form of battering. Yes.[40]
Parenthetically, the credibility of appellant was demonstrated as
follows:
“Q And you also said that you administered [the] objective
personality test, what x x x [is this] all about?
A The objective personality test is the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory. The purpose of that test is to find out about the lying
prone[ne]ss of the person.
Q What do you mean by that?
A Meaning, am I dealing with a client who is telling me the
truth, or is she someone who can exaggerate or x x x [will] tell a lie[?]
Q And what did you discover on the basis of this objective
personality test?
A She was a person who passed the honesty test. Meaning she is
a person that I can trust. That the data that I’m gathering from her are the
truth.”[41]
The other expert witness presented by the defense, Dr. Alfredo
Pajarillo, testified on his Psychiatric Report,[42]
which was based on his interview and examination of Marivic Genosa. The Report
said that during the first three years of her marriage to Ben, everything
looked good -- the atmosphere was fine, normal and happy -- until “Ben started
to be attracted to other girls and was also enticed in[to] gambling[,]
especially cockfighting. x x x. At the same time Ben was often joining his barkada
in drinking sprees.”
The drinking sprees of Ben greatly changed the attitude he showed
toward his family, particularly to his wife. The Report continued: “At first,
it was verbal and emotional abuses but as time passed, he became physically
abusive. Marivic claimed that the viciousness of her husband was progressive
every time he got drunk. It was a painful ordeal Marivic had to anticipate
whenever she suspected that her husband went for a drinking [spree]. They had
been married for twelve years[;] and practically more than eight years, she was
battered and maltreated relentlessly and mercilessly by her husband whenever he
was drunk.”
Marivic sought the help of her mother-in-law, but her efforts
were in vain. Further quoting from the Report, “[s]he also sought the advice
and help of close relatives and well-meaning friends in spite of her feeling
ashamed of what was happening to her. But incessant battering became more and
more frequent and more severe. x x x.”[43]
From the totality of evidence presented, there is indeed no doubt
in the Court’s mind that Appellant Marivic Genosa was a severely abused person.
Effect of
Battery on Appellant
Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the
abused woman, her state of mind metamorphoses. In determining her state of
mind, we cannot rely merely on the judgment of an ordinary, reasonable person
who is evaluating the events immediately surrounding the incident. A Canadian
court has aptly pointed out that expert evidence on the psychological effect of
battering on wives and common law partners are both relevant and necessary.
“How can the mental state of the appellant be appreciated without it? The
average member of the public may ask: Why would a woman put up with this kind
of treatment? Why should she continue to live with such a man? How could she
love a partner who beat her to the point of requiring hospitalization? We
would expect the woman to pack her bags and go. Where is her self-respect?
Why does she not cut loose and make a new life for herself? Such is the
reaction of the average person confronted with the so-called ‘battered wife
syndrome.’”[44]
To understand the syndrome properly, however, one’s viewpoint
should not be drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person. What goes on
in the mind of a person who has been subjected to repeated, severe beatings may
not be consistent with -- nay, comprehensible to -- those who have not been
through a similar experience. Expert opinion is essential to clarify and
refute common myths and misconceptions about battered women.[45]
The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her
research on domestic violence, has had a significant impact in the United
States and the United Kingdom on the treatment and prosecution of cases, in
which a battered woman is charged with the killing of her violent partner. The
psychologist explains that the cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon
the battered woman immobilizes the latter’s “ability to act decisively in her
own interests, making her feel trapped in the relationship with no means of
escape.”[46] In her
years of research, Dr. Walker found that “the abuse often escalates at the point
of separation and battered women are in greater danger of dying then.”[47]
Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that “the
battered woman usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has x x x
self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x [W]hen the
violence would happen, they usually think that they provoke[d] it, that they
were the one[s] who precipitated the violence[; that] they provoke[d] their
spouse to be physically, verbally and even sexually abusive to them.”[48]
According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a
battered woman does not readily leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self-blame
and guilt arising from the latter’s belief that she provoked the violence, that
she has an obligation to keep the family intact at all cost for the sake of
their children, and that she is the only hope for her spouse to change.[49]
The testimony of another expert witness, Dr. Pajarillo, is also
helpful. He had previously testified in suits involving violent family relations,
having evaluated “probably ten to twenty thousand” violent family disputes
within the Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein such cases abounded. As a
result of his experience with domestic violence cases, he became a consultant
of the Battered Woman Office in Quezon City. As such, he got involved in about
forty (40) cases of severe domestic violence, in which the physical abuse on
the woman would sometimes even lead to her loss of consciousness.[50]
Dr. Pajarillo explained that “overwhelming brutality, trauma”
could result in posttraumatic stress disorder, a form of “anxiety neurosis or
neurologic anxietism.”[51] After
being repeatedly and severely abused, battered persons “may believe that they
are essentially helpless, lacking power to change their situation. x x x
[A]cute battering incidents can have the effect of stimulating the development
of coping responses to the trauma at the expense of the victim’s ability to
muster an active response to try to escape further trauma. Furthermore, x x x
the victim ceases to believe that anything she can do will have a predictable
positive effect.”[52]
A study[53]
conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania,
found that “even if a person has control over a situation, but believes that she
does not, she will be more likely to respond to that situation with coping
responses rather than trying to escape.” He said that it was the cognitive
aspect -- the individual’s thoughts -- that proved all-important. He
referred to this phenomenon as “learned helplessness.” “[T]he truth or facts of
a situation turn out to be less important than the individual’s set of beliefs
or perceptions concerning the situation. Battered women don’t attempt to leave
the battering situation, even when it may seem to outsiders that escape is
possible, because they cannot predict their own safety; they believe that
nothing they or anyone else does will alter their terrible circumstances.”[54]
Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow
responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes that he
is capable of killing her, and that there is no escape.[55] Battered women feel unsafe,
suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to leave the relationship.[56]
Unless a shelter is available, she stays with her husband, not only because she
typically lacks a means of self-support, but also because she fears that if she
leaves she would be found and hurt even more.[57]
In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records for specific
evidence establishing that appellant, due to the repeated abuse she had
suffered from her spouse over a long period of time, became afflicted with the
battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to find sufficient evidence that
would support such a conclusion. More specifically, we failed to find ample
evidence that would confirm the presence of the essential characteristics of
BWS.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle
of violence” supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic
Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents. In relating to the
court a quo how the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben started,
Marivic perfectly described the tension-building phase of the cycle. She was
able to explain in adequate detail the typical characteristics of this stage.
However, that single incident does not prove the existence of the syndrome. In
other words, she failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in
the past, she had gone through a similar pattern.
How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build
up prior to acute battering? How did Marivic normally respond to Ben’s
relatively minor abuses? What means did she employ to try to prevent the
situation from developing into the next (more violent) stage?
Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to
the third phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run
away to her mother’s or father’s house;[58] that
Ben would seek her out, ask for her forgiveness and promise to change; and that
believing his words, she would return to their common abode.
Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent incidents between
her and her spouse? Did she believe that she was the only hope for Ben to
reform? And that she was the sole support of his emotional stability and
well-being? Conversely, how dependent was she on him? Did she feel helpless
and trapped in their relationship? Did both of them regard death as preferable
to separation?
In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself
her factual experiences and thoughts that would clearly and fully demonstrate
the essential characteristics of the syndrome.
The Court appreciates the ratiocinations given by the expert
witnesses for the defense. Indeed, they were able to explain fully, albeit
merely theoretically and scientifically, how the personality of the battered
woman usually evolved or deteriorated as a result of repeated and severe
beatings inflicted upon her by her partner or spouse. They corroborated each
other’s testimonies, which were culled from their numerous studies of hundreds
of actual cases. However, they failed to present in court the factual
experiences and thoughts that appellant had related to them -- if at all --
based on which they concluded that she had BWS.
We emphasize that in criminal cases, all the elements of a
modifying circumstance must be proven in order to be appreciated. To repeat,
the records lack supporting evidence that would establish all the essentials of
the battered woman syndrome as manifested specifically in the case of the
Genosas.
BWS as
Self-Defense
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship
does not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive
partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense.[59]
From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons
further that crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered
woman at the time of the offense[60] -- she
must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed
in the need to kill him in order to save her life.
Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one
who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one’s life; and
the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely
imaginary.[61] Thus,
the Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites and effect of
self-defense:[62]
“Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not
incur any criminal liability:
“1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur;
First.
Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself.”
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of
self-defense.[63] It
presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger
thereof -- on the life or safety of a person.[64] In the
present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was
a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal
attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his violent
behavior and escape to their children’s bedroom. During that time, he
apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the
imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a
position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety.
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their
children’s bedroom -- and based on past violent incidents, there was a great
probability that he would still have pursued her and inflicted graver harm --
then, the imminence of the real threat upon her life would not have ceased
yet. Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further
evidence of actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not required.
Incidents of domestic battery usually have a predictable pattern. To require
the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend
her life “would amount to sentencing her to ‘murder by installment.’”[65]
Still, impending danger (based on the conduct of the victim in previous
battering episodes) prior to the defendant’s use of deadly force must be
shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required
imminence of danger.[66]
Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense may be
appreciated.
We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous,
does not warrant self-defense.[67] In the
absence of such aggression, there can be no self-defense -- complete or
incomplete -- on the part of the victim.[68] Thus,
Marivic’s killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.
Mitigating
Circumstances Present
In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did not
raise any other modifying circumstances that would alter her penalty, we deem
it proper to evaluate and appreciate in her favor circumstances that mitigate
her criminal liability. It is a hornbook doctrine that an appeal in a criminal
case opens it wholly for review on any issue, including that which has not been
raised by the parties.[69]
From several psychological tests she had administered to Marivic,
Dra. Dayan, in her Psychological Evaluation Report dated November 29, 2000,
opined as follows:
“This is a classic case of a Battered Woman Syndrome. The
repeated battering Marivic experienced with her husband constitutes a form of
[cumulative] provocation which broke down her psychological resistance and
natural self-control. It is very clear that she developed heightened
sensitivity to sight of impending danger her husband posed continuously.
Marivic truly experienced at the hands of her abuser husband a state of
psychological paralysis which can only be ended by an act of violence on her
part.” [70]
Dr. Pajarillo corroborates the findings of Dra. Dayan. He
explained that the effect of “repetitious pain taking, repetitious battering,
[and] repetitious maltreatment” as well as the severity and the prolonged
administration of the battering is posttraumatic stress disorder.[71]
Expounding thereon, he said:
“Q What causes the trauma, Mr. Witness?
A What causes the trauma is probably the repetitious
battering. Second, the severity of the battering. Third, the prolonged
administration of battering or the prolonged commission of the battering and
the psychological and constitutional stamina of the victim and another one is
the public and social support available to the victim. If nobody is
interceding, the more she will go to that disorder....
x x x x
x x x x x
Q You referred a while ago to severity. What are the
qualifications in terms of severity of the postraumatic stress disorder, Dr.
Pajarillo?
A The severity is the most severe continuously to trig[g]er
this post[t]raumatic stress disorder is injury to the head, banging of the head
like that. It is usually the very very severe stimulus that precipitate this
post[t]raumatic stress disorder. Others are suffocating the victim like
holding a pillow on the face, strangulating the individual, suffocating the
individual, and boxing the individual. In this situation therefore, the victim
is heightened to painful stimulus, like for example she is pregnant, she is
very susceptible because the woman will not only protect herself, she is also
to protect the fetus. So the anxiety is heightened to the end [sic] degree.
Q But in terms of the gravity of the disorder, Mr. Witness, how
do you classify?
A We classify the disorder as [acute], or chronic or delayed or
[a]typical.
Q Can you please describe this pre[-]classification you called
delayed or [atypical]?
A The acute is the one that usually require only one battering
and the individual will manifest now a severe emotional instability, higher
irritability remorse, restlessness, and fear and probably in most [acute] cases
the first thing will be happened to the individual will be thinking of suicide.
Q And in chronic cases, Mr. Witness?
A The chronic cases is this repetitious battering, repetitious
maltreatment, any prolonged, it is longer than six (6) months. The [acute] is
only the first day to six (6) months. After this six (6) months you become
chronic. It is stated in the book specifically that after six (6) months is
chronic. The [a]typical one is the repetitious battering but the individual
who is abnormal and then become normal. This is how you get neurosis from
neurotic personality of these cases of post[t]raumatic stress disorder.” [72]
Answering the questions propounded by the trial judge, the expert
witness clarified further:
“Q But just the same[,] neurosis especially on battered woman
syndrome x x x affects x x x his or her mental capacity?
A Yes, your Honor.
Q As you were saying[,] it x x x obfuscated her rationality?
A Of course obfuscated.”[73]
In sum, the cyclical nature and the severity of the violence
inflicted upon appellant resulted in “cumulative provocation which broke down
her psychological resistance and natural self-control,” “psychological
paralysis,” and “difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory.”
Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such
manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the exercise by
appellant of her will power without, however, depriving her of consciousness of
her acts. There was, thus, a resulting diminution of her freedom of
action, intelligence or intent. Pursuant to paragraphs 9[74]
and 10[75] of
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, this circumstance should be taken in her
favor and considered as a mitigating factor. [76]
In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating
circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced
passion and obfuscation. It has been held that this state of mind is present
when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so
powerful as to overcome reason.[77] To
appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1)
there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of
mind; and (2) this act is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the accused might recover her normal
equanimity.[78]
Here, an acute battering incident, wherein Ben Genosa was the
unlawful aggressor, preceded his being killed by Marivic. He had further
threatened to kill her while dragging her by the neck towards a cabinet in
which he had kept a gun. It should also be recalled that she was eight months
pregnant at the time. The attempt on her life was likewise on that of her
fetus.[79] His
abusive and violent acts, an aggression which was directed at the lives of both
Marivic and her unborn child, naturally produced passion and obfuscation
overcoming her reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a separate room,
her emotional and mental state continued. According to her, she felt her blood
pressure rise; she was filled with feelings of self-pity and of fear that she
and her baby were about to die. In a fit of indignation, she pried open the
cabinet drawer where Ben kept a gun, then she took the weapon and used it to
shoot him.
The confluence of these events brings us to the conclusion that
there was no considerable period of time within which Marivic could have
recovered her normal equanimity. Helpful is Dr. Pajarillo’s testimony[80]
that with “neurotic anxiety” -- a psychological effect on a victim of
“overwhelming brutality [or] trauma” -- the victim relives the beating or
trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually being beaten at the
time. She cannot control “re-experiencing the whole thing, the most vicious
and the trauma that she suffered.” She thinks “of nothing but the
suffering.” Such reliving which is beyond the control of a person under
similar circumstances, must have been what Marivic experienced during the brief
time interval and prevented her from recovering her normal equanimity.
Accordingly, she should further be credited with the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation.
It should be clarified that these two circumstances --
psychological paralysis as well as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise
from the same set of facts.
On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical
nature and the severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon
appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in
her psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the
exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts.
The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the
violent aggression he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the
incident occurred when she was eight months pregnant with their child was
deemed by her as an attempt not only on her life, but likewise on that of their
unborn child. Such perception naturally produced passion and obfuscation on
her part.
Second Legal Issue:
Treachery
There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against
persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without
risk to oneself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.[81]
In order to qualify an act as treacherous, the circumstances invoked must be
proven as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere
inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence.[82]
Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must be proved as
conclusively as the killing itself.[83]
Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial
court imposed the penalty of death upon appellant. It inferred this qualifying
circumstances merely from the fact that the lifeless body of Ben had been found
lying in bed with an “open, depressed, circular” fracture located at the back
of his head. As to exactly how and when he had been fatally attacked, however,
the prosecution failed to establish indubitably. Only the following testimony
of appellant leads us to the events surrounding his death:
“Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged
you? How did he drag you?
COURT:
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand
flexed forcibly in her front neck)
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Where did he bring you?
A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then
he kept on shouting at me that ‘you might as well be killed so there will be
nobody to nag me’
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is there in the drawer?
A I was aware that it was a gun.
COURT INTERPRETER
(At this juncture the witness started crying)
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the
drawer but he could not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled
his wallet which contained a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that he
was going to kill me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade
fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long,
and when he was about to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I
ran to the other room, and on that very moment everything on my mind was to
pity on myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the same when I
was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit.
COURT INTERPRETER
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
x x x x
x x x x x
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you
please describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
A Three (3) inches long and ½ inch wide.
Q It is a flexible blade?
A It’s a cutter.
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
Q How did he do it?
A He wanted to cut my throat.
Q With the same blade?
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.
x x x x
x x x x x
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q You said that this blade fell from his grip, is it correct?
A Yes, because I smashed him.
Q What happened?
A Ben tried to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I pick-up the
pipe and I smashed him and I ran to the other room.
Q What else happened?
A When I was in the other room, I felt the same thing like what
happened before when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit.
I know my blood pressure was raised. I was frightened I was about to die
because of my blood pressure.
COURT INTERPRETER:
(Upon the answer of the witness getting the pipe and smashed him,
the witness at the same time pointed at the back of her neck or the nape).
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q You said you went to the room, what else happened?
A Considering all the physical sufferings that I’ve been
through with him, I took pity on myself and I felt I was about to die also
because of my blood pressure and the baby, so I got that gun and I shot him.
COURT
/to Atty. Tabucanon
Q You shot him?
A Yes, I distorted the drawer.”[84]
The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of
treachery. There is no showing of the victim’s position relative to
appellant’s at the time of the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is the
rule 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.[85]
Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, 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.[86]
There is no showing, though, that the present appellant intentionally chose a
specific means of successfully attacking her husband without any risk to
herself from any retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, 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. 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, this Court
resolves the doubt in her favor.[87]
Proper Penalty
The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since two mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance have been found to have attended
the commission of the offense, the penalty shall be lowered by one (1) degree,
pursuant to Article 64 of paragraph 5[88] of the same Code.[89]
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period is imposable,
considering that two mitigating circumstances are to be taken into account in
reducing the penalty by one degree, and no other modifying circumstances were
shown to have attended the commission of the offense.[90]
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty shall be
within the range of that which is next lower in degree -- prision mayor
-- and the maximum shall be within the range of the medium period of reclusion
temporal.
Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, we deem it
just and proper to impose the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period, or six (6) years and one (1) day in prison as minimum; to reclusion
temporal in its medium period, or 14 years 8 months and 1 day as maximum.
Noting that appellant has already served the minimum period, she may now apply
for and be released from detention on parole.[91]
Epilogue
Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman
syndrome was neither easy nor simple to analyze and recognize vis-Ã -vis the given
set of facts in the present case. The Court agonized on how to apply the
theory as a modern-day reality. It took great effort beyond the normal manner
in which decisions are made -- on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence
applicable to the proven facts. To give a just and proper resolution of the
case, it endeavored to take a good look at studies conducted here and abroad in
order to understand the intricacies of the syndrome and the distinct
personality of the chronically abused person. Certainly, the Court has learned
much. And definitely, the solicitor general and appellant’s counsel, Atty.
Katrina Legarda, have helped it in such learning process.
While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we
can only work within the limits of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We
cannot make or invent them. Neither can we amend the Revised Penal Code. Only
Congress, in its wisdom, may do so.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of
self-defense arising from the battered woman syndrome. We now sum up our main
points. First, 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. Second, 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. Third,
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.
Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of these
elements were duly established.
WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for
parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2) mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending her commission of the
offense, her penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal
as maximum.
Inasmuch as appellant has been
detained for more than the minimum penalty hereby imposed upon her, the
director of the Bureau of Corrections may immediately RELEASE her
from custody upon due determination that she is eligible for parole, unless she
is being held for some other lawful cause. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., join Justice Santiago in her dissent.
Vitug and Quisumbing
JJ., in the result.
Ynares-Santiago J., see
dissenting opinion.