Case Summary (G.R. No. 135981)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
Appellant was convicted by the RTC of parricide and sentenced to death (treachery found as aggravating circumstance). The case was subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court. On appeal and during automatic review appellant raised claims of self‑defense (including a novel battered woman syndrome, “BWS,” defense), defense of her fetus, and other assignments of error. The Supreme Court remanded for expert psychological/psychiatric opinion on the BWS claim and later rendered the final disposition.
Prosecution Version of Events (Summary)
Prosecution witnesses described repeated quarreling and, after a reported period when the couple’s rented house appeared closed, the discovery of Ben’s corpse in the bedroom with severe head injuries and signs of decomposition. Police found a metal pipe in the bedroom and Dr. Cerillo’s postmortem reported a depressed fracture of the occipital bone with severe intracranial hemorrhage; cause of death attributed to that injury. Witnesses (neighbors, co‑workers) testified as to the couple’s loud quarrels and the last time Ben was seen alive. The Information charged deliberate killing with treachery and evident premeditation.
Defense Version of Events and Appellant’s Admissions
Appellant admitted killing her husband but narrates a factual sequence where, after searching for him and finding him drunk, repeated provocation culminated in his threatening and violent conduct that night: cutting the TV antenna, physical assault (grappling, choking/whirling), dragging her toward a drawer containing a gun, his attempt to open the drawer and production of a three‑inch cutter from his wallet, and the use of a pipe in the struggle. Appellant said she struck him with the pipe and later retrieved and used a gun from the drawer. She fled to Manila briefly thereafter (explained as seeking safety and proper delivery of her child). The defense produced multiple witnesses and medical records documenting prior incidents of injury to appellant over several years.
Trial Court Ruling (RTC)
The RTC rejected the self‑defense plea, found treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance, and convicted appellant of parricide, imposing the death penalty plus civil indemnities and moral damages. The trial court based treachery in part on the condition and location of the body and concluded the victim was defenseless when killed.
Remand for Expert Evidence and Nature of Expert Testimony
The Supreme Court partially granted appellant’s omnibus motion and remanded for reception of psychological/psychiatric expert opinion on the battered woman syndrome. Dr. Dayan (clinical psychologist) and Dr. Pajarillo (psychiatrist) examined appellant and testified: both experts described the psychological profile and dynamics of battered women, including the cycle of violence (tension‑building, acute battering, and tranquil/reconciliation phases), learned helplessness and post‑traumatic stress disorder manifestations, and opined that appellant fit the battered woman profile and that the cumulative, repetitive abuse had a substantial effect on her psychological state, diminishing her willpower and producing reliving of trauma that could impair rational responsiveness.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The principal legal issues decided were: (1) whether appellant acted in lawful self‑defense or in defense of her fetus (and whether the BWS theory could sustain a complete or partial self‑defense); and (2) whether treachery was proven as aggravating circumstance. Appellant also challenged various factual findings of the trial court (marriage status, cause of death, failure to subpoena certain witnesses, and alleged hasty decision).
Supreme Court’s Standard of Review on Factual Findings
The Court reiterated the principle that trial court credibility findings merit deference and will not be disturbed absent a showing of grave abuse, misunderstanding, or misapplication of material facts. The Court sustained several RTC factual determinations: legal marriage was proven by appellant’s judicial admission and corroborative testimony; the exact instrumental cause of death (pipe or gunshot) was immaterial given appellant’s admission of both striking and shooting; and the trial court was not hasty in its adjudication given the record and time taken.
Legal Framework for Self‑Defense and Application to BWS
The Court analyzed self‑defense under Art. 11 RPC: unlaw ful aggression (actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger), reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Unlawful aggression is essential; without it no self‑defense (complete or incomplete) exists. The Court acknowledged that foreign jurisprudence recognizes BWS as relevant to self‑defense or incomplete self‑defense, and that expert evidence is often necessary to explain the battered person’s state of mind. The Court stressed, however, that evidence must demonstrate the elements of self‑defense in the specific case and that the cyclical history alone does not automatically establish legal justification.
Court’s Findings on BWS as a Complete Defense
Applying the legal elements to the record, the Court concluded that appellant failed to prove all essential characteristics of BWS as manifested in her relationship with Ben in a way that would justify complete exoneration by self‑defense. Specifically, the Court found insufficient proof that the cycle of violence – including each of its three phases in at least two episodes – had been demonstrated in the record with the requisite clarity to establish that, at the time of the killing, unlawful aggression was ongoing or that there was a present imminent attack justifying defensive killing. The Court emphasized that an interval had elapsed: according to appellant’s own account she had withdrawn to another room after an earlier assault, and the immediate danger had ceased before she shot him in the bedroom; where aggression has ceased, self‑defense is not available.
Mitigating Circumstances — Psychological Paralysis and Passion
Although complete self‑defense was not established, the Court accepted that the cumulative and severe beatings produced substantial psychological effects on appellant. On the basis of the expert testimony and psychological testing, the Court found two mitigating circumstances in appellant’s favor: (1) an illness or condition diminishing the exercise of willpower (Article 13(9) RPC and analogous circumstances under Article 13(10)) — referred to as psychological paralysis or diminished willpower resulting from cumulative provocation and trauma; and (2) acting upon an irresistible impulse producing passion and obfuscation (an extenuating circumstance), because an acute battering episode and direct threats to her life and that of her fetus immediately preceded the fatal act and there was no appreciable interval for recovery of normal equanimity. The Court treated these as distinct mitigating bases: one chronic/cumulative (diminished willpower) and one acute (passion and obfuscation).
Treachery Not Proven as Aggravating Circumstance
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s finding of treachery. It emphasized that treachery must be proved as clearly as the killing itself and not inferred from conjecture or mere condition of the body. The record did not establish that appellant deliberately chose a method to ensure execution of the criminal design without risk of defense by the victim; instead, the killing occurred after a quarrel and struggle in circumstances from which treachery could not be conclusively inferred. Moreover, when killings follow arguments or quarrels treachery ordinarily cannot be found because the victim has forewarning.
Proper Penalty, Indeterminate Sentence Law and Release Eligibility
Because the Court found two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, it reduced the penalty by one degree pursuant to Article 64. The Court fixed the penalty range under the Indeterminate Sentence Law so that the minimum penalty became prision mayor
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 135981)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 135981; reported at 464 Phil. 680; En Banc decision dated January 15, 2004; penned by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban.
- Case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ormoc City, Branch 35, Criminal Case No. 5016-0.
- RTC Decision (September 25, 1998, Judge Fortunito L. Madrona) found appellant Marivic Genosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide (Article 246 RPC as restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659) and imposed the death penalty after finding treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance and none of the mitigating circumstances.
- Information charged appellant with parricide on or about November 15, 1995, at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte, alleging attack with a hard deadly weapon and setting forth the autopsy findings describing a depressed occipital fracture and severe intracranial hemorrhage.
- Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment (March 3, 1997); was tried through numerous hearings (trial dates listed in record) and convicted by the RTC; case elevated for automatic review to the Supreme Court.
- On appeal, appellant raised multiple assigned errors and principally asserted self-defense and defense of fetus, relying on the battered woman syndrome (BWS); the prosecution opposed conviction only insofar as the RTC factual findings supported treachery and the conviction.
Facts — Prosecution Version
- Marivic and Ben Genosa married (testimony established marriage despite absence of marriage certificate); they lived in Isabel, Leyte and later rented a house in Barangay Bilwang in 1995.
- On November 15, 1995, Ben and a co-worker (Arturo Basobas) attended cockfights and drank before returning home that night; neighbors heard an argument between Ben and Marivic that evening.
- Appellant was seen leaving the rented house with children on November 16, 1995; neighbors later noticed the house appeared uninhabited.
- On November 18, 1995, the houseowner, Steban Matiga, and others entered the house because of a foul odor; they found Ben’s lifeless body covered with a blanket in a bedroom, injuries to the back of the head, body in advanced decomposition.
- Police found a metal pipe leaning near the aparador; bedroom not in disarray.
- Municipal health officer Dr. Refelina Cerillo conducted the postmortem, estimated death 2–3 days prior, and provided the postmortem findings quoted in the Information: depressed fracture of occipital bone with laceration of brain and severe intracranial hemorrhage, among other signs; cause of death stated as cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to depressed occipital fracture.
- Prosecution presented neighbor testimony that the couple quarreled loudly on November 15, 1995 and that appellant had earlier threatened to kill Ben and been heard saying “I won’t hesitate to kill you,” to which Ben replied “Why kill me when I am innocent?”
Facts — Defense Version (Appellant’s Account and Supporting Witnesses)
- Appellant admitted she killed Ben but claimed self-defense and defense of her unborn child, testifying to a sequence of events on November 15, 1995:
- She returned home after searching for Ben, found him drunk and quarrelsome.
- Ben cut the TV antenna with a bolo and later grabbed and whirled her, causing her to fall; she screamed and he left; she packed his clothes intending him to leave.
- Ben returned enraged, dragged her by the neck toward a drawer that contained a gun, displayed a three-inch blade cutter from his wallet, and was about to open the drawer; appellant testified she smashed Ben’s arm with a pipe, the blade/wallet fell, she ran to the children’s bedroom, later pried open the drawer, retrieved a gun and shot Ben.
- Appellant was eight months pregnant at the time and later had pregnancy complications and premature birth (Rizal Medical Centre admission, baby born December 1, 1995).
- Defense presented multiple witnesses corroborating recurrent abuse and violent quarrels over the marriage, including:
- Alex Genosa (Ben’s brother) and Iluminada Genosa (Ben’s mother) who testified about past violent incidents.
- Arturo Basobas and at least three neighbors (Joe Barrientos, Junnie Barrientos, Teodoro Sarabia) who heard or saw the couple quarrelling on the fatal night and who testified to prior incidents and Ben’s drunkenness.
- Ecel Arano (appellant’s cousin) testified she was asked repeatedly to sleep at appellant’s house because appellant feared Ben when drunk and related a prior incident where Ben brandished a knife at a window.
- Dr. Dino Caing (company physician) produced outpatient charts documenting six physical-injury episodes from 1990 to 1995 and testified appellant had recurrent tension headaches and hypertensive episodes related to stress; he examined appellant on November 6, 1995 and recorded severe hypertension while she was eight months pregnant (BP 180/120).
- Appellant’s contemporaneous testimony and medical records documented repeated physical injuries and domestic violence over a prolonged period.
Trial Court Findings and Ruling
- RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide, credited prosecution version that Ben was killed while in bed asleep, and appreciated treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance.
- RTC imposed the death penalty and awarded indemnity and moral damages to heirs (P50,000 each).
- Trial court rejected appellant’s self-defense claim, finding absence of unlawful aggression at the time of the shooting and accepting treachery from the posture of the death and head injury.
Supervening Proceedings Before the Supreme Court — Reopening for Expert Evidence
- Appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion (Feb. 19, 2000) requesting exhumation, psychiatric/psychological examination of appellant, and partial reopening for expert testimony.
- Supreme Court issued a Resolution (Sept. 29, 2000) granting in part: remanded the case to the trial court to receive expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on battered woman syndrome (BWS) plea and to report proceedings back to the Court.
- On remand, the trial court authorized clinical evaluations by Dr. Natividad A. Dayan (clinical psychologist) and Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo (psychiatrist); both testified and their reports and documentary evidence were admitted and forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
Expert Testimony — Dr. Natividad Dayan (Clinical Psychologist)
- Qualifications: over twenty years as a clinical psychologist, professor at De La Salle University, past head of Psychology Dept. at Assumption College, faculty at Ateneo and others; PhD from UP; extensive research on domestic violence (500 cases over 10 years); member/past officer of professional psychology associations.
- Familiarity with BWS and the cycle of violence; described domestic violence as encompassing psychological, verbal, emotional, physical and sexual abuse.
- Described battered women’s typical traits: low self-esteem, self-defeating/sacrificing characteristics, emotional dependence, tendency to self-blame and to hope for partner’s change.
- Explained the cycle of violence: tension-building phase, acute battering incident, and tranquil/reconciliation phase; emphasized predictability and cumulative effect of repeated abuse.
- Applied her clinical work to appellant after multiple interviews and tests (including an objective personality test, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory), concluded appellant fit profile of a battered woman and passed honesty indicators on the objective test.
- Opined appellant had developed heightened sensitivity to impending danger from her husband, cumulative provocation that broke down psychological resistance and self-control, and psychological paralysis; she further opined appellant experienced extreme battering and was disorder