People vs.

Genosa Legmed: Battered Woman Syndrome

Marivic Genosa, the appellant, 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 her baby (she was 8 months pregnant, wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby
safely.)

The appellant (Marivic) 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.

(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense. No

“cycle of violence,” has three phases:

For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense arising
from battered woman syndrome: (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.

The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence” supposedly characterizing
the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant
failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone 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
legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner.

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.
Facts
1. This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Genosa, by his wife Marivic Genosa.
2. 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.
3. Marivic testified that every time her husband came home drunk, he would provoke her and
sometimes beat her. Whenever beaten by her husband, she consulted medical doctors who testified
during the trial.
4. On the night of the killing, Marivic and the victim were quarreled and the victim beat her. However,

1
 she was able to run to another room.
5. She admitted having killed the victim with the use of a gun.
6. The information for parricide against Marivic, however, alleged that the cause of death of the victim
was by beating through the use of a lead pipe. Marivic invoked self defense and defense of her
unborn child.
Procedural History
1. After trial, the RTC found Marivic guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide
with an aggravating circumstance of treachery and imposed the penalty of death.
2. On automatic review before the Supreme Court, appellant filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION
praying that the Honorable Court allow
(1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of his death;
(2) the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine
her state of mind at the time she killed her husband; and finally,
(3) the inclusion of the said experts’ reports in the records of the case for purposes of the
automatic review or, in the alternative, a partial re-opening of the case a quo to take the testimony
of said psychologists and psychiatrists.
3. The Supreme Court partly granted the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION of Marivic.
4. It remanded the case to the trial court for reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric
opinion on the “battered woman syndrome” plea. Testimonies of two expert witnesses on the
“battered woman syndrome”, Dra. Dayan and Dr. Pajarillo, were presented and admitted by the
trial court and subsequently submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the records.
Issues Ruling
1. Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the “battered woman 1. No
syndrome” as constituting self defense.
2. Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa. 2. No
Rationale
1. Marivic 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 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.”

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 battered woman
syndrome. 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 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. Third, 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.

The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence” supposedly characterizing
the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant
failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through a
similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the

2
cycle.

In any event, 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. Settled in our jurisprudence, is the rule that the 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. 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 to prevent or repel it;
and (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.

The mitigating factors of psychological paralysis and passion and obfuscation were, however, taken in
favor of appellant. It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- 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.

As to the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally
produced passion and obfuscation, it has been held that 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.

2. No treachery in the killing of Ben Genosa.

Treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that
when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance, because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated
aggression from the assailant. Moreover, 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.

The appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion or obfuscation.
The acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact
that she was eight (8) months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid
emotional and mental state, which overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and that of
her unborn child.

Disposition
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant for parricide. However, considering the presence
of two (2) mitigating circumstances and without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty is reduced to
six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion

3
 temporal as maximum. Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum penalty
hereby imposed upon her, the director of the Bureau of Corrections may immediately RELEASE her from
custody upon due determination that she is eligible for parole, unless she is being held for some other
lawful cause.

NOTE: After this case was decided by the Supreme Court, R.A. 9262, otherwise known as Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 was enacted. Sec. 26 of said law provides that "xxx.
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur
any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.xxx"
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE

Tension-building phase - minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another 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.

Acute battering incident - 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 painful experience that it
is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent
bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt.

Tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief. 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 womans 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.