People vs. Genosa GR No.

135981
Facts: Appellant Marivic Genosa and Ben Genosa were married on November 19, 1983. In the first year of their
marriage, they lived happily but soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and their fights would become
violent. Ben, according to the appellant, became cruel to her and was a habitual drinker.
On the evening of November 15, 1995, a fight ensued between the couple. Earlier that day, appellant went to
look for her husband with her cousin at the taverns, fearing that he will exhaust his salary on gambling and
alcohol. Upon appellant's arrival home where Ben was already waiting, a violent quarrel between the two
happened which escalated to Ben beating Marivic and threatening to kill her. Appellant was however able to
escape Ben's grasp, then get a hold of a lead pipe, hit him on his hand and nape, thus killing him. She also
admittedly used a gun to shoot him afterwards.
During the trial at the Regional Trial Court, appellant invoked self-defense and defense of her unborn child
as her defense against the prosecution. Nonetheless, RTC found the appellant guilty or parricide and imposed
the death penalty on her.
Appellant subsequently filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION (motion for multiple requests) to the Supreme
Court to allow partial reopening of the case and allow the Honorable Court to (1) exhume the body of Ben
Genosa and re-examine the cause of death, (2) examine Marivic Genosa's state of mind by psychologists and
psychiatrists at the time of the killing, and (3) include the said experts' reports in the records.
Issue 1: Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus (*appellant raises the
theory of Battered Woman Syndrome as the justifying circumstance)
Ruling: The defense fell short of proving that all 3 phases* of BWS are present. There were acute battering
incidents and tension-building phase but there was no sufficient evidence with regards to the third phase (e.g.
Did she feel helpless and trapped in their relationship?; Did both of them regard death as preferable to
separation?). 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.
BWS as self-defense:
In BWS as self-defense, actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not required but impending danger
(based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendants use of deadly force
must be shown. (Example of imminence of dander: threatening behavior or communication)
In this case, however, according to the appellant, there was sufficient time interval between the unlawful
aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. The reality or even the imminence of danger he posed had
ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety. Hence,
Marivics killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstance.
However, there are mitigating circumstances evaluated and appreciated by the Court:
a.

Article 13 paragraphs 9 and 10: the cumulative provocation which broke down the appellants
psychological resistance and self-control, psychological paralysis and difficulty in concentrating
or impairment of memory were analogous to an illness that diminished her exercise of will power
without, however, depriving her of consciousness of her acts.

b.

Article 13 paragraph 6: the husbands abusive and violent acts, an aggression which was directed
at the lives of both Marivic and her unborn child, naturally produced passion and obfuscation.

*The BWS is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has three phases (paraphrased from the
case):
a. The tension-building phase:

In this phase, minor battering occurs (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 in order to prevent the escalation of violence. However, the womans act proves to be doubleedged, as her placatory and passiveness behavior legitimizes the batterers belief that he is entitled to abuse
the woman.
The battered soon withdraws emotionally which provides the batterer more entitlement to become angry,
oppressive and abusive.
b. The acute battering incident:
This phase is characterized by brutality, destructiveness and sometimes, death. The battered woman having
no control deems this incident as unpredictable and inevitable. The battered woman realizes that the she
cannot reason with the batter and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition. In this phase, the
battered woman feels detached from the attack and the terrible pain but she may later clearly remember
every detail.
c.

The tranquil, loving (or at least, non-violent) phase

This phase begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience
profound relief.
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of the batterer; hence,
she is responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his reforming 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.
Issue 2: Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa
Ruling: Contrary to RTCs ruling that treachery was present in this case, the SC argued that the testimonies
were insufficient to establish the presence of treachery.
a.

No showing of the victims position relative to appellants at the time of the shooting. 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.

b.

No showing that the appellant intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her
husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory act that he might make.