CASE DIGEST: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981

Title: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981

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

Facts:

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

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

Issues:

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

(2)    Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

Held:

For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life, and; (c) At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to the accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the former against the latter.

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