People vs.
Dulin
RELEVANT FACTS
 Tamayao was on Tamayao Street in Atulayan Norte,
Tuguegarao at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of
August 22, 1990 when a young man came running from
the house of Vicente Danao towards the house of
Batulan, shouting that his Uncle Totoy (Batulan) had
been stabbed.
 Tamayao rushed towards Danao’s house, which was
about 30 meters from his own house, and there he saw
Dulin stabbing Batulan who was already prostrate face
down. Dulin was on top of Batulan, as if kneeling with
his left foot touching the ground. Dulin was holding
Batulan by the hair with his left hand, and thrusting the
knife at the latter with his right hand. Seeing this,
Tamayao ran towards Batulan’s house to inform Estelita
Batulan, the victim’s wife who was his aunt, about the
incident. He went home afterwards.
 There has been a long standing grudge between
Batulan and Dulin, and of seeing them fighting in April
1990. He recalled Dulin uttering on two occasions: He
will soon have his day and I will kill him.
 Cabalza, a barangay tanod, was in his house around
10:00 o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1990 when
he heard the commotion in Danao’s house which was
facing his house. It was Carolina, Danao’s daughter,
screaming for help. He thus sought out a fellow
barangay tanod. O his return to the scene, he found
Batulan at the door of Danao’s house, with Dulin
wielding a sharp pointed instrument, about 6-7 inches
long. Fearing for his safety, he rushed to the Barangay
Hall to seek the assistance of Edwin Cabalza and
Nanding Buenaflor to bring Batulan to the Provincial
Hospital in Carig, Tuguegarao
 At the hospital, she was told that her husband had
sustained two wounds in the back and several stab
wounds in the front, and was being attended to at the
hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU) before he expired.
 Defender’s Side: He was attacked first
 RTC rendered its decision convicting Dulin of murder.
CA affirmed decision
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N Dulin was in NO.
the act of self-
defense 1. The CA observed that although
Batulan had initiated the attack against
Dulin, the unlawful aggression from
Batulan effectively ceased once Dulin
had wrested the weapon from the latter.
2. Batulan, albeit the initial aggressor
against Dulin, ceased to be the
aggressor as soon as Dulin had
dispossessed him of the weapon. Even
if Batulan still went after Dulin despite
the latter going inside the house of
Danao, where they again grappled for
control of the weapon, the grappling for
the weapon did not amount to
aggression from Batulan for it was still
Dulin who held control of the weapon at
that point.
3. Whatever Dulin did thereafter – like
stabbing Batulan with the weapon –
constituted retaliation against Batulan.
In this regard, retaliation was not the
same as self-defense. In retaliation, the
aggression that the victim started
already ceased when the accused
attacked him, but in self-defense, the
aggression was still continuing when the
accused injured the aggressor. As such,
there was no unlawful aggression on the
part of Batulan to justify his fatal
stabbing by Dulin.
W/N Dulin’s NO.
actions may be
considered as an Like in complete self-defense, Dulin
incomplete form of should prove the elements of
self-defense? incomplete self-defense by first credibly
establishing that the victim had
committed unlawful aggression against
him. With Batulan’s aggression having
already ceased from the moment that
Dulin divested Batulan of the weapon,
there would not be any incomplete self-
defense. Moreover, as borne out by his
stabbing of Batulan several times, Dulin
did not act in order to defend himself or
to repel any attack, but instead to inflict
injury on Batulan
RULING
WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES the judgment promulgated
on August 26, 2005 by finding ALFREDO
DULIN YNARAG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE,
and SENTENCES him to suffer the indeterminate sentence of
EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY OF PRISION MAYOR, AS THE
MINIMUM, TO 14 YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS AND ONE DAY OF
RECLUSION TEMPORAL, with full credit of his preventive
imprisonment; ORDERS him to pay to the heirs of Francisco
Batulan ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral
damages, and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, plus interest
of 6% per annum on each item reckoned from the finality of this
decision until full payment; and DIRECTS him to pay the costs
of suit.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V.
DON VEGA Y RAMIL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Before the Court is an appeal filed under Section 13(c), Rule
124 of the Rules of Court from the Decision[1] dated May 12,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Fifth (5th) Division, in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 05072, which affirmed the Decision[2] dated
May 31, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Manila
(RTC), in Criminal Case No. 09-266191, finding herein accused-
appellant Don Vega y Ramil (Don) guilty of the crime of Murder
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Facts
Don was charged with the crime of Murder under the following
Information:
That on or about January 18, 2009, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, qualified with
treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take [sic], attack, assault and use
personal violence upon the person of one MANUEL ISIP y
PADILLA @ Antuling, by then and there repeatedly stabbing the
latter on different parts of his body with a bladed weapon,
thereby inflicting upon the said MANUEL ISIP y PADILLA @
Antuling mortal stab wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death thereafter.
Contrary to law.[3]
Upon arraignment, Don pleaded not guilty.
Version of the Prosecution
The witnesses for the prosecution were SPO2 Edmundo Cabal,
Jennifer S. Torres, Aldrin R. Fernandez, Dr. Romeo T. Salen,
and Maricel A. Calixto, whose versions of the incident were
summarized by the RTC and adopted by the CA and the Office of any intention of the victim to harm the accused.[12] Thus, on
of the Solicitor General, viz.: this score, the theory of self-defense, according to the RTC, falls
flat on its face.[13] Further, considering that Don claimed that
[O]n 18 January 2009 at about 11:30 in the evening, the victim, there were 15 eyewitnesses to the crime, he failed to present
Manuel Padilla Isip, was at Arellano Street, Malate, Manila any witness to fortify his contention that he acted in self-
because his friend, a certain Ogad Venus, was celebrating his defense.[14] Lastly, the RTC ruled that treachery is present
birthday. Among his drinking buddies was Aldrin Roldan since Don grabbed Manuel from behind and suddenly attacked
Fernandez, witness for the prosecution. They were around the unarmed victim with a bladed weapon.[15]
fifteen at that time including the celebrator. While drinking,
chatting, and listening to music, they spotted accused Don Vega Aggrieved, Don appealed to the CA.
who was about four [arms'] length away sniffing rugby from a
bottle. After a few hours, Don Vega approached them and Ruling of the CA
caused a disturbance. He smashed several items. Victim
Manuel Isip tried to pacify the accused saying, "pre, huwag On appeal, in its Decision[16] dated May 12, 2014, the CA
naman dito, kasi may nagkakasiyahan dito" but accused harshly affirmed the conviction by the RTC with modifications:
replied, "huwag kang makialam dito, baka ikaw ang samain."
Victim Manuel Isip did not comment and merely turned his back WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision
to avert a bigger trouble. While the victim's back was turned on of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42 dated May 31,
him, accused suddenly grabbed [the] victim from behind, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 09-266191 is AFFIRMED WITH
wrapped his left arm around [the] victim's neck and using his MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Don Vega y Ramil is
right hand, plunged a knife to his (Manuel's) chest. Victim ordered to pay the heirs of Manuel Padilla Isip the following: a)
Manuel Isip was rushed to the Ospital ng Maynila but was Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) Php75,000.00 as moral
declared "dead on arrival." damages; c) Php14,000.00 as actual damages; and d)
The victim (Manuel Isip) suffered six stab wounds and one Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Further, all monetary
abrasion on the body. The cause of his death is [sic] the four awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of 6%
stab wounds that penetrated the frontal cavities of the chest.[4] per annum from date of finality of this Decision until full payment
thereof.
Version of the Defense SO ORDERED.[17]
The defense offered the lone testimony of Don, which was
recounted by the RTC in its Decision, in this manner: The CA likewise held that the elements of self-defense are
For its part, the defense presented accused himself, who lacking.[18] Moreover, the CA said that Don's flight from the
painted an entirely different picture of the incident. He claimed place where the crime was committed, his non-reporting of the
that on 18 January 2009, at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening, crime to the police, and his failure to voluntarily surrender to the
[h]e was along Tuazon St., San Andres, Manila, drinking with police after the commission of the crime fully warranted the
victim Manuel Isip and a certain "Fernandez," together with the RTC's rejection of his claim of self-defense.[19] Lastly, the CA
birthday celebrator called "Ogad." A certain "Jeffrey" and the ruled that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery
father of the celebrator were also there. More than fifteen joined qualifying the crime to Murder.[20]
the drinking spree. The mood was fine. He requested victim Hence, this appeal.
Manuel Isip to play his theme song. The victim asked him to wait Issues
because there were many who made similar request[s]. He Whether the CA erred in affirming Don's conviction for Murder.
reiterated his request to victim several times but he ignored him. The Court's Ruling
He then approached the victim, but the latter punched him.
Upset, he went back to his table and picked up a bladed The appeal is partly meritorious.
weapon. Victim Manuel Isip suddenly charged towards him, so It is settled that findings of fact of the trial courts are generally
he stabbed him. He thought the people will pacify him (accused), accorded great weight; except when it appears on the record
but he was wrong. He then dashed to his house because people that the trial court may have overlooked, misapprehended, or
were ganging up on him. He was apprehended inside his abode misapplied some significant facts or circumstances which if
and he voluntarily surrendered to those who arrested him. [The considered, would have altered the result.[21] This is axiomatic
victim] was unarmed. It was unfortunate because he did not in appeals in criminal cases where the whole case is thrown
have previous "bad blood" with [the] victim. He regrets what has open for review on issues of both fact and law, and the court
happened; it was unwilled.[5] may even consider issues which were not raised by the parties
Ruling of the RTC as errors.[22] The appeal confers the appellate court full
jurisdiction over the case and renders such competent to
After trial on the merits, in its Decision[6] dated May 31, 2011, examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase
the RTC convicted Don of the crime of Murder. The dispositive the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[23]
portion of said Decision reads: After a careful review and scrutiny of the records, the Court
affirms the conviction of Don, but only for the crime of Homicide,
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused DON VEGA y RAMIL instead of Murder, as the qualifying circumstance of treachery
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER. He is was not proven in the killing of Manuel.
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The accused failed to prove
Accused is further ordered to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos self-defense
(Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity and [Php]50,000.00 as moral
damages to the heirs of Manuel Padilla Isip. In questioning his conviction, Don argues that he should not be
SO ORDERED.[7] criminally liable for the death of the victim because he only acted
in self-defense. He avers that he was merely requesting Manuel
The RTC ruled that all the elements of Murder are present in the to play his theme song, but when he approached to follow-up on
instant case.[8] It also ruled that the defense was not able to his request, the victim suddenly punched him, which thus
establish all the elements of self-defense.[9] One of the triggered him to stab the victim.[24]
important elements of self-defense is that there be reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the This argument deserves scant consideration.
unlawful aggression.[10] However, in this case, there is none
since Don used a bladed weapon to attack an unarmed An accused who pleads self-defense admits to the commission
victim.[11] More importantly, there was no unlawful aggression. of the crime charged.[25] He has the burden to prove, by clear
The act of Manuel Isip (Manuel) charging towards Don cannot and convincing evidence, that the killing was attended by the
even be considered as unlawful aggression absent any showing following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-
defense.[26] Of these three, unlawful aggression is
indispensable. Unlawful aggression refers to "an actual physical
assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a
person."[27] Without unlawful aggression, the justifying
circumstance of self-defense has no leg to stand on and cannot
be appreciated.[28]
The Court agrees with the CA that Don failed to discharge his
burden. All the requisites of self-defense are wanting in this
case:
First, there is no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
For unlawful aggression to be present, there must be real
danger to life or personal safety.[29] Accordingly, the accused
must establish the concurrence of the three elements of unlawful
aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material
attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at
least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be
unlawful.[30] None of the elements of unlawful aggression was
proven by the defense. Aside from Don's self-serving statement
that it was Manuel who punched and attacked him, not one of
the persons present at the incident corroborated his
account.[31]Neither did he present any medical record showing
that he sustained any injuries as the result of the attack by
Manuel.[32]
Second, in the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, the second requisite of self-defense could not have been
present. Even assuming that there was unlawful aggression, the
means employed by Don in repelling the alleged attack by
Manuel was not reasonably necessary. Manuel was unarmed
and had his back turned while Don used a bladed weapon to
"repel the attack" and stab Manuel repeatedly.[33] Thus, the CA
was correct in ruling that the means employed by Don in
repelling the attack was unreasonable.
Lastly, the third requisite requires the person mounting a
defense to be reasonably blameless. He or she must not have
antagonized or incited the attacker into launching an assault.[34]
In this case, Don was not entirely blameless as the reason why
Manuel scolded him was because he was breaking things and
making unnecessary disturbance.[35] It was also Don who
suddenly rushed to the victim and stabbed the latter several
times in the chest.[36] In addition, there was no sufficient
provocation on the part of Manuel. Based on the account of the
witnesses of the prosecution, Manuel merely implored Don to
refrain from breaking things and making unnecessary
disturbance.[37]In fact, when Don uttered harsh words against
Manuel, the latter did not make a comment and instead turned
his back from the former.[38]
Hence, the Court finds that Don failed to prove that he acted in
self-defense.
Treachery was not established
by clear and convincing evidence
In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's finding that
the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, thereby
making Don liable for Murder instead of Homicide. The CA held:
Applying the foregoing pronouncement, we find that alevosia is
thus present in the case at bar. From the statements of
Fernandez and Calixto, accused-appellant wrapped his arm
around the neck of Manuel and stabbed the victim the moment
he turned his back from the accused-appellant. Evidently, the
attack is so sudden and unexpected preventing any chance from
the victim to defend himself. In other words, accused-appellant's
position in attacking Manuel rendered the victim defenseless
and unable to retaliate. Moreso [sic], the fatality and quantity of
the stab wounds forestalled any possibility on the part of Manuel
of resisting the attack. All told, the attack was executed in a
manner that tended to directly and specifically ensure the
execution of the offense.[39]
It is established that the qualifying circumstance of treachery
must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.[40]Thus, for
Don to be convicted of Murder, the prosecution must not only
establish that he killed Manuel; it must also be proven that the
killing of Manuel was attended by treachery.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means and methods or forms in the
execution thereof which tend to directly and specially ensure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.[41] To qualify as an offense, the
following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant employed
means, methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act
which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself
or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms of
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the
assailant.[42] The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim,
depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby
ensuring its commission without risk of himself.[43]
In order to appreciate treachery, both elements must be
present.[44] It is not enough that the attack was "sudden,"
"unexpected," and "without any warning or provocation."[45]
There must also be a showing that the offender consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms
in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such
execution, without risk to himself.
In the case at bar, the following circumstances negate the
presence of treachery:
First, the stabbing incident happened during a drinking spree in
which Don was already a part of. He did not deliberately seek
the presence of Manuel as he was already in the same vicinity
as Manuel, joining the merriment when he stabbed the latter.
Second, in killing Manuel, Don merely picked up a bladed
weapon from his table - there was no mention in the records as
to who owned the said weapon. In a similar case, the Court held
that treachery cannot be presumed merely from the fact that the
attack was sudden. The suddenness of an attack does not, of
itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose
was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and
the victim's helpless position was accidental.[46]
Based on the first and second circumstances abovementioned,
Don's decision to attack Manuel was more of a sudden impulse
on his part than a planned decision.
Lastly, as testified to by the witnesses of the prosecution, the
incident happened during a drinking spree where there were
more or less 15 people, excluding Don and Manuel. If Don
wanted to make certain that no risk would come to him, he could
have chosen another time and place to stab Manuel. In another
case, the Court held that when aid was easily available to the
victim, such as when the attendant circumstances show that
there were several eyewitnesses to the incident, no treachery
could be appreciated because if the accused indeed consciously
adopted means to insure the facilitation of the crime, he could
have chosen another place or time.[47] Thus, the Court can
reasonably conclude that Don acted impetuously in suddenly
stabbing Manuel.
Proper penalty and award of damages
With the removal of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
crime is therefore Homicide and not Murder. The penalty for
Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC is reclusion temporal. In
the absence of any modifying circumstance, the penalty shall be
imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor
with a range of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
Thus, Don shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.
Finally, in view of the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta,[48] the
damages awarded in the CA Decision are hereby modified to
civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages of
P50,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court DECLARESaccused-
appellant Don Vega y Ramil GUILTY of HOMICIDE, for which
he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of
Manuel Isip y Padilla the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as temperate damages. All monetary awards shall
earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from
the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
People vs Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
“Battered Woman Syndrome” Parricide Victim: Ben Genosa
FACTS: Marivic Genosa has been married with Ben Genosa for
quite sometime, and has been for the past years a victim of
physical and emotional violence of her husband. On November
15, after futile search for her husband Ben Genos, Marivic
Genosa, who was 8 months pregnant, together with her cousin
(Ecel), found Ben drunk upon their return at the Genosa’s house.
The cousin went home despite Marivic’s request for her to sleep
in their house. Ben nagged Marivic for following him and
challenged her to a fight; when she ignored him, Ben switched
off the light and with the use of a chopping knife, cut the
television antenna to keep her from watching television. 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. Marivic wanted him
to leave so she packed his clothes. Seeing his packed clothes
upon his return, Ben flew into a rage, dragged Marivic outside
the bedroom towards a drawer holding her neck and told her,
“You might as well be killed so nobody would nag me.” Aware
that there was a gun inside the drawer, but since Ben did not
have any key to it, he got a three-inch long blade cutter from his
wallet. Marivic smashed Ben’s arm with a pipe, causing him to
drop the blade cutter from his wallet. She then smashed his
nape with the pipe as he was about to pick up the blade and his
wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom. She distorted the
drawer where the gun was and shot Ben, which resulted to the
latter’s death. The cadaver of Ben was discovered 3 days from
the incident after an investigation of the foul odor emitting from
the Genosa Residence. Marivic Genosa was charged with the
crime of parricide, with treachery and evident premeditation.
Appellant admits killing her husband, but invokes self-defense
and/or defense of her unborn child.
• September 25, 1998: RTC convicted her, sentencing her to
death because Ben Genosa was supposedly defenseless when
he was killed—lying in bed asleep when Marivic hit him with a
pipe at the back of his head.
• January 20, 2000: Letter to chief Justice
• January 24, 2000: The case was elevated to the Supreme
Court upon automatic review
• February 19, 2000: Appelant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion:
to allow exhumation of Ben and re-examination of the cause of
his death; allow examination of Marivic; inclusion of expert’s
reports in the records pf the case for the purpose of automatic
review
• September 29, 2000: SC remanded case to RTC for the
reception of expert psychological/psychiatric opinion on the
BWS
ISSUES: 1. WON appellant acted in self-defense and/or
defense of her fetus 2. WON treachery attended the killing of
Ben Genosa
HELD: First Issue: Self-defense and/or defense of her unborn
child; 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. 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.” A
battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is
repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he
wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women
include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with
men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least
twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship
with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in
the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.” Battered
women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-
esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the
female sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant
male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer’s
actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve. More
graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by
the so-called “cycle of violence,” which has three phases: (1) the
tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3)
the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. During the
tension-building phase, minor battering occurs, either verbal or
physical or other 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. *lack of emotional
connection to others or inability to communicate with the others
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 of control, such that
innocent bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt. The
final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute
battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple
experience profound relief (kiss and make up episodes ). 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. To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant,
the defense presented several witnesses. Sarabia, a former
neighbor of the Genosas 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. Marivic Genosa herself testified.
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. The average member
of the public may not understand the illogical reaction of a victim,
if confronted with “battered wife syndrome.” 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 comprehensible with those who
have not been through a similar experience. Expert opinion is
essential to clarify and refute common myths and
misconceptions about battered women. The theory of BWS was
formulated by Lenore Walker. 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.”
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.
While the expert witnesses were able to explain fully,
theoretically and scientifically, how the personality of the
battered
woman usually evolved or deteriorated, they however 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. In criminal cases, all the elements
of a modifying circumstance must be proven in order to be
appreciated. Justifying Circumstance: 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. Crucial to the BWS
defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time
of the offense— 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. 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. Article 11
of the Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites and
effect of self-defense: 1. Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; 3. Lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of
self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected
attack—or an imminent danger thereof—on the life or safety of
a person. 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.’” Still, impending danger prior to the defendant’s
use of deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or
communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger.
Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS,
self-defense may be appreciated. The aggression if not
continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of
such aggression, there can be no self-defense—complete or
incomplete—on the part of the victim. Thus, Marivic’s killing of
Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances. In
any event, all is not lost for appellant. Mitigating Circumstance:
As testified by the experts, the cyclical nature and 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.” 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 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code,
this circumstance should be taken in her favor and considered
as a mitigating factor. In addition, in favor of appellant is the
extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation.
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. 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. 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 is likewise on that
of her fetus. 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. There was no
considerable period of time within which Marivic could have
recovered her equanimity. As testified by Dr. Pajarillo, 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. Psychological paralysis as well as passion and
obfuscation did not arise from the same set of facts. 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. Second Issue: Treachery (for future reference )
Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial
court imposed the penalty of death upon appellant. 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. 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, the court resolves the
doubt in her favor. The proper penalty is prision mayor in its
minimum period, or six years and one day in prison as minimum;
to reclusion temporal in its medium period or 14 years, 8 moths
and 1 day as maximum. Since the appellant has already served
the minimum period, she may now apply for and be released
from detention on parole. Epilogue: Requisites of self-defense
arising from the battered woman syndrome:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Dissenting Opinion: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. 1. Cycle There is
no doubt that Marivic was afflicted with the "Battered Woman
Syndrome" and that it was an apprehension of death and the
instinct to defend her and her unborn child's life that drove her
to kill her husband. a. Tension Building phase: The various
testimonies of appellant's witnesses clearly reveal that she knew
exactly when she would once again be subjected to acute
battery.
• Ecel Arano, testified that she often asked the latter to sleep in
her house as she was afraid every time her husband came home
drunk.
• The barangay captain, Panfilo Tero, also testified that
appellant sought his help two months before she killed her
husband.
• Appellant presented evidence to prove that the tension-
building phase would occur whenever her husband would go out
looking for other women, would lose at cockfights or would come
home drunk.
*To require appellant to prove the state of mind of the deceased,
as seems to be required in the ponencia, would mean that no
person would ever be able to prove self-defense in a battered
woman case. Appellant could not possibly prove whether the
deceased felt provoked into battering by any act or omission of
appellant. She cannot possibly prove that she felt herself to be
the sole support of the deceased's emotional stability and well-
being. Nevertheless, appellant felt trapped and helpless in the
relationship as, in the end, she resorted to killing her husband
as no one could or did help her, whether out of fear or
insensitivity, during the violent marriage she endured.
b. Acute battering incident
• Severe beatings suffered by Marivic in the hands of the
deceased as well as the threats to kill her using a bolo or a
cutter.
• The physical abuses occurred at least 3 times a week in the 11
miserable years of their marriage,[3] six incidents of which were
documented by the 1990-1995 medical records of Marivic.
(hematoma, contusion, and pain on the breasts; multiple
contusions and trauma on the different parts of her body even
during her pregnancy in 1995.)
c. Tranquil period
• Shown by the repeated “kiss and make-up” episodes of their
relationship. On more than 5 occasions, Marivic ran to her
parents’ house after violent fights with the deceased only to
forgive the latter every time he would fetch her and promise to
change.
• All these recurring phases of cycle of violence, repentance and
forgiveness developed a trauma in the mind of Marivic making
her believe that a forthcoming attack from the deceased would
cause her death. This state of mind of Marivic was revealed in
her testimony given way back in 1998, before she was examined
by experts on BWS.
• It must be stressed that the defense of "Battered Woman
Syndrome" was not raised by Marivic before the lower court but
only here on automatic review. This makes the foregoing
testimony more worthy of great weight and credence
considering that the same could not have been cunningly given
to suit or conform to the profile of a battered woman.
• Moreover, there was indeed basis for Marivic to fear death
because of her medical history. Dr. Dino Caing testified that he
treated Marivic for hypertension due to domestically related
emotional stress on 23 separate occasions.
2. Self-defense As a rule, the unlawful aggression or the attack
must be imminent and actually in existence. This interpretation
must, however, be re-evaluated vis-a-vis the recognized
inherent characteristic of the psyche of a person afflicted with
the "Battered Woman Syndrome." As previously discussed,
women afflicted by this syndrome live in constant fear for their
life and thus respond in self-defense. Once BWS and an
impending danger based on the conduct of the deceased in
previous battering episodes are established, actual occurrence
of an assault is no longer a condition sine qua non before self
defense may be upheld. Threatening behavior or
communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger.
As stated in the ponencia, 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.
In the case at bar, the cycle of violence perpetrated by the
deceased, which culminated in the physical assaults and an
attempt to shoot Marivic when she was 8 months pregnant, took
the place of unlawful aggression, thus entitling her to a complete
self defense even if there was no actual employment of violence
by the deceased at the time of the killing. Marivic had every
reason to believe that the deceased would kill her that night not
only because the latter was verbally threatening to kill her while
attempting to get a gun from the drawer, but more importantly
because the deceased wounded her on the wrist with a bolo,
and because of the deceased's previous conduct of threatening
to cut her throat with a cutter which he kept in his wallet.