7/28/2019 People vs. Genosa (Digest2)

1/1

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROMEAS A VIABLE PLEA WITHIN THE

CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARIVIC GENOSA

G.R. No. 135981. September 29, 2000

Facts: On or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay Bilwang,

Municipality of Isabel, province of Leyte, accused Marivic Genosa, with intent to

kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,

unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound BEN GENOSA, her

legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon, which the accused had

provided herself for the purpose, inflicting several wounds which caused his

death.

The lower court found the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyondreasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and sentenced the accused with the

penalty of DEATH.

On appeal, the appellant alleged that despite the evidence on record of repeated

and severe beatings she had suffered at the hands of her husband, the lower court

failed to appreciate her self-defense theory. She claimed that under the

surrounding circumstances, her act of killing her husband was equivalent to self-

defense.

Issue: Whether or not the battered woman syndrome as a viable plea within the

concept of self-defense is applicable in this case.Held: No. 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 persons mind an actual fear

of an imminent harm, from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to

use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer

must have posed probablenot necessarily immediate and actualgrave harm tothe 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