People of the Philippines vs. Marivic Genosa

Posted Jan 15, 2004

By Anonymous

8 min read

Case Title and Citation

People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Marivic Genosa, appellant.
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Justice Artemio V. Panganiban

Facts

Marivic Genosa and Ben Genosa were married (marriage date given in record: November 19, 1983). They lived together intermittently with Ben’s parents and later rented a house in Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte.
On November 15, 1995, an incident of quarrel and physical aggression between the spouses occurred at the Genosa residence; witnesses heard or saw the couple grappling and heard threats. Appellant was eight months pregnant at the time.
Appellant admitted that she struck Ben with a metal pipe and then shot him. Ben’s body was discovered on November 18, 1995; Dra. Refelina Cerillo estimated he had been dead two to three days and recorded a depressed fracture of the occipital bone and severe intracranial hemorrhage. A metal pipe and other items were observed at the scene.
Appellant was charged with parricide (Information dated November 14, 1996). She pleaded not guilty and was tried; the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Ormoc City, convicted her of parricide, found treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance, and sentenced her to death (RTC Decision promulgated September 25, 1998).
During trial and on appeal, evidence of repeated domestic violence was presented: medical outpatient records showing multiple injuries (1989–1995), testimony from neighbors and relatives recounting recurrent beatings and quarrels, and appellant’s testimony describing repeated abuse, attempts to leave, and the November 15, 1995 episodes in which Ben threatened and physically assaulted her and sought a weapon from a drawer.
On appellant’s motion, this Court (Resolution dated September 29, 2000) remanded for reception of expert psychological/psychiatric opinion on “battered woman syndrome” (BWS). Two experts testified before the trial court and their reports were included in the record: Dra. Natividad A. Dayan (clinical psychologist) and Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo (psychiatrist).
Expert findings: Dra. Dayan and Dr. Pajarillo concluded appellant fit the profile of an abused/battered woman; repeated battering produced cumulative provocation, psychological paralysis/diminished willpower (analogous to illness), and re-experiencing of trauma (post-traumatic stress manifestations). Appellant also had documented severe hypertension while pregnant.
On automatic review, the Supreme Court considered whether appellant acted in lawful self-defense/defense of the fetus and whether treachery attended the killing.

Issues

Did appellant act in lawful self-defense and/or in defense of her unborn child?
Was treachery present in the killing of Ben Genosa?
Should the trial court’s conviction and imposition of the death penalty be sustained, reduced, or modified in light of expert evidence of repeated battering and its psychological effects?

Ruling

No - appellant was not entitled to complete exoneration by self-defense; the Court found no unlawful aggression existing at the exact time of the fatal shooting.
No - treachery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; circumstances supporting treachery were not established with the required certainty.
Yes - the conviction for parricide is AFFIRMED, but the penalty is REDUCED because two mitigating circumstances (diminished will-power from cumulative provocation/psychological paralysis and passion/obfuscation) were established; appellant is eligible to apply for parole.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Self-defense principles and requisites:
1. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (justifying circumstances) requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression (actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger) is essential.
2. The Court held that at the moment appellant shot Ben there was no continuing or imminent unlawful aggression: testimony showed she had withdrawn to a bedroom and that the immediate danger had, in the Court’s view, ceased; absent unlawful aggression there can be no complete self-defense (citing Article 11 and related jurisprudence).
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) and its evidentiary/legal effect:
1. The Court recognized BWS (drawing on foreign jurisprudence such as R. v. Lavallee and psychological literature) as a relevant psychological condition that may affect perception of danger and volition.
2. The Court required proof of the syndrome as manifested between the parties: at least two cycles of the “cycle of violence” (tension-building, acute battering incident, and tranquil/forgiving phase) and proof that the final acute episode produced an actual fear of imminent harm or an honest belief that force was necessary to save life.
3. In this case, while experts testified that appellant fit the battered-person profile and that repeated brutality produced psychological paralysis, the Court found the record did not establish all essential elements of BWS sufficiently to fully justify the killing as complete self-defense.
Mitigating circumstances:
1. The Court found, on the basis of expert testimony and documentary medical evidence, that the recurrent severe beatings (cumulative provocation) diminished appellant’s exercise of will-power without depriving her consciousness of her acts; this satisfies Article 13, paragraph 9 (illness diminishing will-power) and paragraph 10 (analogous circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code.
2. The Court also found the extenuating circumstance of passion and obfuscation present because the fatal shooting followed an acute violent episode (including threats, a weapon attempt, and appellant’s pregnancy), and there was no considerable lapse of time for recovery of normal equanimity.
Treachery:
1. Treachery must be proved with the same degree of certainty as the killing; it cannot be inferred from conjecture.
2. The prosecution failed to show the victim was in a defenseless position or that the method chosen by appellant was deliberately selected to ensure execution without risk of defense; argument or quarrel preceding a killing negates treachery as the victim may have been forewarned. Thus treachery was not established.
Penalty calculation:
1. Parricide under Article 246 carries reclusion perpetua to death. With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, penalty is reduced one degree under Article 64.
2. The Court fixed the penalty range under the Indeterminate Sentence Law: minimum — prision mayor in its minimum period (6 years + 1 day); maximum — reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 8 months, 1 day).
3. Because appellant had already served the minimum period while in pretrial detention, she may apply for parole (citing Indeterminate Sentence Law provisions).

Relevant authorities and statutes cited in reasoning: Article 11 (Justifying circumstances), Article 13 (Mitigating circumstances, paragraphs 9 and 10), Article 64, Article 246 (parricide), Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended); People v. Malabago (marriage proof), R. v. Lavallee and other foreign cases on BWS; jurisprudence on treachery and burden of proof.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Unlawful aggression (actual, sudden, or imminent danger) is an indispensable element of self-defense; absent it, self-defense cannot be invoked to fully exonerate the actor.
Battered Woman Syndrome can be relevant to assessment of the accused’s state of mind and may give rise to mitigating circumstances when established by clear and convincing evidence.
To invoke BWS as complete self-defense, the cyclical pattern of abuse must be established (at least two cycles) and the final episode must have produced an actual fear of imminent harm such that the accused honestly believed deadly force was necessary.
Treachery (alevosia) must be proven with the same degree of certainty as the killing; it cannot rest on conjecture or inference from the mere condition of the body or the existence of prior quarrels.
Expert psychological/psychiatric evidence is permissible and may be necessary to explain the battered person’s perception, but factual manifestations of the syndrome in the specific relationship must be established in the record.

Disposition

The conviction of appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is AFFIRMED.
Penalty reduced to: minimum — six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor; maximum — fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.
Given that appellant has already served more than the minimum period during detention, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections may release her upon due determination that she is eligible for parole, unless legally detained for another cause.
Costs de oficio.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

Justices Puno, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga concurred with the ponente.
Chief Justice Davide, Jr., and Justices Sandoval-Gutierrez and Austria-Martinez joined Justice Ynares-Santiago in a dissenting opinion.
Justice Ynares-Santiago filed a separate dissent (would have acquitted appellant).
Justices Vitug and Quisumbing concurred only in the result.

Significance / Notes

This decision is the Supreme Court’s first extended treatment of the “battered woman syndrome” in the Philippine criminal jurisprudence and clarifies its evidentiary and legal limits.
The Court recognizes BWS as a legitimate phenomenon that may inform assessment of an accused’s mental state and may produce mitigating circumstances (illness diminishing will-power; passion and obfuscation), even where complete self-defense is not established.
Requirements set by the Court for BWS to support a complete self-defense claim:
1. Proof that the cycle of violence characterized the relationship in at least two battering episodes (tension-building, acute battering, tranquil/forgiving phase).
2. Proof that the final acute episode produced an actual fear of imminent harm and an honest belief that force was necessary to save life.
3. The batterer’s prior conduct can supply probable (not necessarily immediate) grave harm to satisfy imminence in appropriate circumstances.
The decision underscores evidentiary standards: expert testimony explaining BWS is admissible but must be tied to concrete testimony and documentary evidence showing how the syndrome manifested between the parties.
Treachery remains a strict qualifying circumstance requiring proof as strong as that of the killing itself; antecedent quarrel or warning usually undermines treachery.
Practical effect: courts may consider psychological and medical evidence of repeated domestic abuse when assessing mitigating circumstances and sentencing; however, full justification by self-defense will require demonstration of continuing or imminent unlawful aggression (unless the totality of BWS evidence supports a different legal conclusion under the Court’s standards).

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.