Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VAWC - CASES
People vs. Genosa |GR 135981
FACTS: Marivic Genosa, 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, it was
her husband began the provocation. The appellant said she was
frightened that her husband would hurt her to the point that it would
prejudice the safety of her pregnancy and she wanted to make sure
that she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, the appellant had to be
admitted later at the Rizal Medical Center as she was suffering from
eclampsia and hypertension. Appellant testified that during her
marriage she tried to leave her husband five (5) 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 because Ben was crazy about his girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos, which
left her. The appellant after being interviewed by specialists, has been
shown to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant
with a plea of self-defense admitted to the killing of her husband, she
was then guilty of parricide, with the aggravating circumstance of
treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.
ISSUE: WON appellant can validly invoke the battered woman
syndrome as constituting self-defense?
RULING: 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 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. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. 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 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 probable, not necessarily immediate and
actual but grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence
perpetrated 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.