Group 2 People vs. Genosa; 419 SCRA 537 [GR No.

135981] Parricide; Self defense; Battered Woman Syndrome applied; Definition of Battered woman; what is cycle of violence Facts: Marivic (accused) and Ben (victim) were married and had 3 children. One day, victim went out with a friend on a cockfight and drinking spree since it was pay day. Marivic along with her cousin went out to the market to look for the victim thinking that he might be on a drinking spree and frightened that he will abuse her again. When the victim got home, the two quarreled. Ben left the home probably for another drinking spree. The accused packed his clothes because she wanted him to leave, seeing this by the victim, the latter flew into raged, dragged the accused outside the room towards the drawer, which contained a gun, holding her by the neck. He got a blade cutter but the accused smashed the arm of the victim with a pipe, she then ran into the bedroom. Accused who by the time also pregnant for 8 months, threatened that the victim will kill her, ended the life of her husband using a gun. It was alleged that the accused has been suffering in the hands of her husband, who physically abuses her. She claimed that she was only defending herself and her fetus thus invoking the Batter Woman Syndrome. Issue: WON accused acted on self-defense by invoking Battered Woman Syndrome Held: Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attackor an imminent danger thereofon 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. 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. 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 defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence. 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. 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 -- 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 selfdefense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of these elements were duly established.