People vs.

Genosa
The case of People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004, is the first to use the defense of "battered woman syndrome" in the Philippines.
Contents
[hide]

1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Ruling 4 Citation

[edit]

Facts

The wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years. She was 8 months pregnant when, one evening, her husband came home drunk and started to batter her. Shouting that his wife "might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag" him, he dragged her towards a drawer where he kept a gun, but was not able to open the drawer because it was locked. So he got out a cutter from his wallet, but dropped it. She was able to hit his arm with a pipe and escape into another room. The wife, thinking of all the suffering that her husband had been inflicting on her, and thinking that he might really kill her and her unborn child, distorted the drawer and got the gun. She shot her husband, who was by then asleep on the bed. She was tried and convicted for parricide, which is punishable byreclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years) to death. On appeal, she alleged "battered woman syndrome" as a form of self-defense. [edit]

Issue

May "battered woman syndrome" be regarded as a form of self-defense to exempt the accused from criminal liability?

[edit]

Ruling

Yes. The Supreme Court said, however, that the records lack supporting evidence that would establish all the essentials of the battered woman syndrome as manifested specifically in the case of Genosa. More specifically, the Court stated:

The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of selfdefense arising from the battered woman syndrome. We now sum up our main points. 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 self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of these elements were duly established.

By the time the wife killed her husband, there was no longer any aggression on his part to justify a claim of self-defense. However, the Court also found that the cycle of abuse inflicted by the husband resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder on the part of the wife, which lessened her freedom of action, intelligence, and intent, resulting in a "psychological paralysis". Also, the battering she received at his hands before she killed him produced passion and obfuscation which overcame her reason. These were appreciated by the Court as mitigating circumstances. Also, the Court found that

there was no treachery. The wife's conviction was affirmed, but considering the mitigating circumstances, her sentence was reduced. Since she had already served more than the minimum sentence, the Court said that she might be considered for parole.