Case Summary (G.R. No. 150694)
Procedural Posture and Reliefs Sought
Appellant was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of parricide with treachery and sentenced to death, with awards of indemnity and moral damages. Before filing the appeal brief, appellant submitted an Urgent Omnibus Motion seeking (1) exhumation and re-examination of the victim’s body to determine cause of death, and (2) court-ordered psychological/psychiatric examination to determine appellant’s state of mind and to develop a “battered woman syndrome” defense, with admission of expert reports into the records or partial reopening of trial proceedings in Metro Manila to receive such evidence.
Facts as Charged and Trial Court Finding
The Information alleged that on or about 15 November 1995 appellant, with intent to kill, and with treachery and premeditation, attacked and wounded her legitimate husband, Ben Genosa, using a hard deadly weapon, causing injuries described in the Information and resulting in death. Appellant admitted killing her husband and admitted both striking him with a metal pipe and shooting him in the back of the head. The RTC found the cause of death to be cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture of the occipital bone, attributed by the trial court to being “smashed or beaten at the back of his head,” and rejected the self-defense theory, concluding violence did not immediately precede the killing.
Issues Presented for Resolution
The Court distilled the motion into two principal issues: (1) whether the victim’s body should be exhumed and reexamined to ascertain the exact cause of death, and (2) whether appellant should undergo psychological/psychiatric examination to determine her mental state at the time of the killing and to permit the admission of expert opinion on the battered woman syndrome.
Governing Principles on Review and Due Process
The Court reiterated that in criminal appeals the entire record is open to review and that the Court may decide factual and legal issues, including those not raised at trial, particularly where the death penalty is imposed. Conviction must rest upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where the accused faces capital punishment, courts must allow full opportunity to raise and develop defenses capable of negating criminal liability or reducing penalty. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts entitled to receive firsthand evidence on appeal and that, ordinarily, opportunities to offer evidence must have been exercised at trial.
First Issue — Rejection of Exhumation and Reexamination
The Court denied the request to exhume and autopsy the victim’s body. The rationale: appellant admitted both the striking and the shooting acts against the victim, and the precise task of determining which act caused death was unnecessary to the disposition at hand and should have been developed at trial. The Court reaffirmed that it will not authorize reception of firsthand evidence on appeal where the opportunity to present such evidence existed during trial. Given these principles and the record, exhumation was deemed unnecessary and immaterial at this stage.
Second Issue — Need for Psychological/Psychiatric Examination on “Battered Woman Syndrome”
The Court granted, in part, appellant’s request for psychological/psychiatric examination. Appellant advanced a novel defense theory contending that the battered woman syndrome could affect her perception of imminent danger and thus be subsumed within the concept of self-defense. The Court acknowledged the factual indicia in the record of recurrent domestic violence (medical visits for injuries and hypertension noted in trial testimony, and family testimony about frequent quarrels) and found that the syndrome merited serious consideration given the potential life-or-death consequences for the accused. The Court held that evaluation by mental health experts is necessary to properly assess whether the appellant acted freely, intelligently, and voluntarily or whether her mental and emotional state at the time of the act could mitigate or negate criminal liability.
Need for Reopening and Opportunity for Cross-Examination
Because the prosecution is entitled to confront and cross-examine expert opinion, and because the Court cannot itself elicit and evaluate such expert evidence on appeal, the appropriate remedy was a partial reopening of the case at the trial court level. The Court cited precedents (People v. Parazo; People v. Estrada) where post-conviction expert examinations and remands were ordere
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 150694)
Citation and Court
- Reported at 395 Phil. 711, En Banc, G.R. No. 135981, decided September 29, 2000.
- Decision written by Justice Panganiban.
- Case involves automatic review of the September 25, 1998 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Ormoc City, in Criminal Case No. 5016-0. [1][2]
Parties and Posture
- Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Appellant / Movant: Marivic Genosa y Isidro.
- Proceeding before the Supreme Court is an Urgent Omnibus Motion filed by appellant in connection with the automatic review of her conviction and sentence.
Charge and Alleged Facts as Stated in the Information
- Information dated November 14, 1996, filed by Provincial Prosecutor I Rosario D. Beleta. [3]
- Charge: Parricide allegedly committed on or about November 15, 1995, at Barangay Bilwang, Municipality of Isabel, Province of Leyte.
- Allegation of culpable conduct: That the accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked, assaulted, hit and wounded one Ben Genosa, her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon which she had provided for the purpose, causing specified grave injuries which caused his death.
- The Information recites graphic post-mortem and injury descriptions including cadaveric spasm, body decomposition, facial swelling and post-mortem lividity, eyes protruding, depressed circular fracture at the occipital bone with brain laceration and severe intracranial hemorrhage, spontaneous rupture of blood vessels on posterior surface of brain, laceration of dura and meningeal vessels, blisters with epidermal shedding, abdomen distended with gas, and a bloated trunk. These injuries were alleged to have caused death.
Trial Court Judgment (RTC)
- RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide as provided under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code as restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659.
- RTC found treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance and none of the mitigating circumstances.
- Penalty imposed: Death.
- Monetary awards: Payment to the heirs of the deceased of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.
- The dispositive portion of the RTC Judgment is quoted in full in the record. [Rollo, pp. 26-43; penned by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.]
Nature and Purpose of the Supreme Court Motion
- Prior to filing her Appeal Brief, appellant submitted an Urgent Omnibus Motion to the Supreme Court seeking to bring to the Court’s attention facts and circumstances which, if valid, could warrant setting aside her conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. [4]
- Appellant alleged trial court error in concluding she lied about the means used to kill her husband, contending she had consistently claimed she shot him but was found to have “smashed” him with a pipe.
- Appellant pointed to the absence of a forensic autopsy report on record to support the RTC’s physical-cause findings.
- Appellant also alleged repeated and severe beatings inflicted by the husband and argued that under the circumstances her act of killing was equivalent to self-defense.
Reliefs Requested in the Urgent Omnibus Motion
- Appellant prayed for:
- Exhumation of the victim’s body and re-examination to determine cause of death.
- Examination of appellant by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists of the Court to determine her state of mind at the time of the killing.
- That the reports of such psychologists and psychiatrists be included in the records for purposes of automatic review or, alternatively, that there be a partial re-opening of the case before a lower court in Metro Manila to admit the testimony of those experts. [5]
Prosecution’s Comment
- On August 22, 2000, the Solicitor General, representing the State, filed a Comment objecting substantially to the Motion.
- The principal ground of objection was that appellant had not been deprived of her right to due process, whether substantial or procedural. [6]
Issues Framed for Resolution by the Court
- Two principal issues for the Court’s resolution:
- Whether the body of the victim should be exhumed and reexamined to ascertain the cause of death.
- Whether the appellant should be examined by qualified psychologists or psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time of the killing.
Governing Jurisprudential and Constitutional Considerations Expressly Noted by the Court
- It is a “hornbook rule” that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire records to review; the Court may pass upon all relevant issues, including factual questions not raised below.
- This principle applies with particular force in capital cases, where the accused must be allowed to avail themselves of all possible avenues for defense.
- Criminal conviction must rest on proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and will not authorize firsthand reception of evidence that was available to the party at trial.
- The accused facing death must be given fair opportunities to proffer all defenses that could avert capital punishment; novel defenses deserve due consideration on the merits, not dismissal on mere technical or procedural grounds.