![C.V. arabic 30-9-2020 · 2020. 9. 30. · K ] } v Z v v P ] v ] v P u v P u v U 3ODQQLQJ DQG 6FKHGXOLQJ U d } o Y µ o ] Ç D v P u v ~dYD U } µ ] } v u v P u v v Z u Z } } o } P](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/60bcfd1a4a6e1f7fbe6fb50b/cv-arabic-30-9-2020-2020-9-30-k-v-z-v-v-p-v-v-p-u-v-p-u-v-u-3odqqlqj.jpg)
p v genosa
of 3
Transcript of p v genosa
-
8/7/2019 p v genosa
1/3
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Marivic Genosa, appellantJustice Artemio V. Panganiban
Panganiban Artemio V., J. Supreme Court of the Philippines EN BANC. "People of the Philippines,appellee, vs. Marivic Genosa appellant." Manila: 15 January 2004. G.R. No. 135981.
Case Digest
FACTS: This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Genosa, by his wife Marivic Genosa, appellantherein. During their first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived happily but apparently thereafter,Ben changed and the couple would always quarrel and sometimes their quarrels became violent.Appellant testified that every time her husband came home drunk, he would provoke her andsometimes beat her. Whenever beaten by her husband, she consulted medical doctors who testifiedduring the trial. On the night of the kill ing, appellant and the victim were quarreled and the victimbeat the appellant. However, appellant was able to run to another room. Appellant admitted havingkilled the victim with the use of a gun. The information for parricide against appellant, however,alleged that the cause of death of the victim was by beating through the use of a lead pipe.Appellant invoked self defense and defense of her unborn child. After trial, the Regional Trial Courtfound appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide with an aggravatingcircumstance of treachery and imposed the penalty of death.
On automatic review before the Supreme Court, appellant filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTIONpraying that the Honorable Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-examinationof the cause of his death; (2) the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists andpsychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she killed her husband; and finally, (3) theinclusion of the said experts reports in the records of the case for purposes of the automatic reviewor, in the alternative, a partial re-opening of the case a quo to take the testimony of saidpsychologists and psychiatrists. The Supreme Court partly granted the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTIONof the appellant. It remanded the case to the trial court for reception of expert psychological and/orpsychiatric opinion on the battered woman syndrome plea. Testimonies of two expert witnesseson the battered woman syndrome, Dra. Dayan and Dr. Pajarillo, were presented and admitted bythe trial court and subsequently submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the records.
ISSUE:1. Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the battered woman syndrome as
constituting self defense.2. Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.
Ruling: 1. The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that she is afflicted with the battered woman syndrome.
A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forcefulphysical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her todo without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimaterelationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple mustgo through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationshipwith a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as abattered woman.
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.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the batteredwoman syndrome. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to havecharacterized 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 producedin the battered persons mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honestbelief that she needed to use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, thebatterer must have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm to theaccused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken
-
8/7/2019 p v genosa
2/3
altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing factsof the present case, however, not all of these elements were duly established.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence supposedlycharacterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute batteringincidents but appellant failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she hadgone through a similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the
third phase of the cycle.
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself establish the legalright of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. Settled in our jurisprudence, is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense mustface a real threat on ones life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, notmerely imaginary. Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides that the following requisites of self-defense must concur: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed toprevent or repel it; and (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defendinghimself.
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes actual, suddenand unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger thereof -- on the life or safety of a person. In thepresent case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a sufficient timeinterval 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 childrens bedroom. During thattime, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of thedanger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actualthreat on her life or safety.
The mitigating factors of psychological paralysis and passion and obfuscation were, however, takenin favor of appellant. It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological paralysisas 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 thebatterer-spouse upon appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in herpsychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will powerwithout depriving her of consciousness of her acts.
As to the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to havenaturally produced passion and obfuscation, it has been held that this state of mind is present whena crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust orimproper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. To appreciate thiscircumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1) there is an act, both unlawful andsufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not far removed from thecommission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might recoverher normal equanimity.
2. NO. Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively asthe killing itself. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is preceded by anargument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because thedeceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from theassailant. Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault adopted by theaggressor 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 partyattacked.
The appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion orobfuscation. The acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, inspite of the fact that she was eight (8) months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and puther in the aforesaid emotional and mental state, which overcame her reason and impelled her tovindicate her life and that of her unborn child.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant for parricide. However, considering thepresence of two (2) mitigating circumstances and without any aggravating circumstance, the
-
8/7/2019 p v genosa
3/3
penalty is reduced to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years 8months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Inasmuch as appellant has been detained formore than the minimum penalty hereby imposed upon her, the director of the Bureau of Correctionsmay immediately RELEASE her from custody upon due determination that she is eligible for parole,unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.
![v î ì í î U Á P v u v P ] v P } o o ] } v } ( } µ ] u ...](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/62ad9341825bd62d1e1a4f1c/v-u-p-v-u-v-p-v-p-o-o-v-.jpg)
![D v P u v ' µ ] ( } W µ o ] W ] } v ] v ^ ] v . Z Z · 2015-03-18 · À ] ] v P v µ v P v Æ ] v P } v X t Z v } u } o o Z } Z µ ] u v } ( µ v l ] v P ] Ì v ] v](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5ede49ebad6a402d66699c79/d-v-p-u-v-w-o-w-v-v-v-z-z-2015-03-18-v-p-v.jpg)
![D X v P ] v ] v P z í ~ v P ] v ] v P Á ] Z D v P u v s ñ í ì ï t ] P v t } l Z ... · 2020-02-11 · W P ð } ( õ ~ Z W Z v ] o ] ( ] ] } v ( } ] µ o ] v À } o À Á ] Z](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5f3005da5ca9420dec1a5e59/d-x-v-p-v-v-p-z-v-p-v-v-p-z-d-v-p-u-v-s-t-p-v-t.jpg)
![o ] v P v P ] v & ] ] } v v ] P v · o ] v P v P ] v & ] ] } v v ] P v ... e\](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5e7a62a857e1734ede40a010/o-v-p-v-p-v-v-v-p-v-o-v-p-v-p-v-v-v-p-v-.jpg)
![^ v P Z v ] v P v P Ç ] ] ( } v o Ç ] v P o ] u Z v P W / v } µ ] } v } Z ] } v · 2016. 10. 4. · , t v P Ç o v U u ] ] } v U W ] U ( ( ] ] v ... Microsoft PowerPoint - Energy_introduction_IEA](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/601f63431296790ce22364e3/-v-p-z-v-v-p-v-p-v-o-v-p-o-u-z-v-p-w-v-v-z-.jpg)
![v À o P v } P } v ] v µ ] À ] } v > , v U µ - SciELO](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/62c7fb82178e9e78d475bc88/v-o-p-v-p-v-v-v-gt-v-u-scielo.jpg)
![P ] U / v X · 2018-12-11 · { K À ] v P v ] ] v P } u v Ç u v P u v ] v Z À o } u v } ( } µ v µ ] v P ] X](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5e9eadfa2eefa337836bdda5/p-u-v-x-2018-12-11-k-v-p-v-v-p-u-v-u-v-p-u-v-v-z-o-.jpg)
![K À À ] Á } ( ] v ] ] ] À ( } v Z v ] v P } } ] v ] } v v ...€¦ · / v } µ ] } v & } ] v P Ç v P ] v v Z v ] v P } o o } ] } v v } } ] v ] } v } ] } ] À ] Ç r o } v À](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5f71be7f1345627ffc7c2e81/k-v-v-z-v-v-p-v-v-v-v-v.jpg)
![] À ] o À ] ] } v µ Z } ] Ç } ( ^ ] v P } } À ^ Z r í ð ñ ... · } À ^ Z r í ð ñ K P v ] ] } v î í& ] o v P ] v ] v P v d ] v P W > ò > } Ç v P t o l U ^ ] v P } ñ](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/6025080642b59e610d00e823/-o-v-z-v-p-z-r-z-r.jpg)
![VLV 8VLQJ (7$3 · / v v ] } v o : } µ v o } ( > d Z v } o } P Ç ] v v P ] v ] v P U D v P u v o ] ^ ] v ~/:>d D ^](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5e710b69bdd6f02342768158/vlv-8vlqj-73-v-v-v-o-v-o-d-z-v-o-p-v-v-p-v-.jpg)
![o < o À P o } P o P ] v µ v · 2019-12-18 · µ v P µ X h v P v l o µ u ] P u u v U u v ] P µ U Z À ] ( ( t v u µ v P](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5fb98d91d1680979b16ecea5/o-o-p-o-p-o-p-v-v-2019-12-18-v-p-x-h-v-p-v-l-o-u-p-u.jpg)
![} o o ] } v } ( v l } ] } v , Ì / v Æ ~ ,/ v E v l ^ ~E ^ µ ] v P …...' v ( µ v ] v P ~ o v t D v P u v d µ & µ v X D l o v µ P } µ v Ç ^ u Z } ] } v Z v l ] v P ^ Ç u](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5f7bc98a66f64a089a2d66eb/-o-o-v-v-l-v-oe-v-v-e-v-l-e-v-p-v-.jpg)
![< X i v } v U , X , o P U > X , À ] v P U X < v µ v U , X ... · P u u ] l l P o v X ^ P i v u ( µ P i À o v X s ] v ( o µ } P o P P À l](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5f4d95b868593756d475ddbe/-x-i-v-v-u-x-o-p-u-x-v-p-u-x-v-v-u-x-p-u-u-.jpg)
![P ] i v Á v µ ] P v o ] i l v o Ç À v P P Á } u Z ] i Ì } } M · 2019-05-01 · P ] i v Á v µ ] P v o ] i l Á } u Z ] i Ì } } M v o Ç À v } v P v P P v Z v Z ] P ] v P](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5ede49eead6a402d66699c7e/p-i-v-v-p-v-o-i-l-v-o-v-p-p-u-z-i-oe-m-2019-05-01.jpg)
