People v.

Genosa
G.R. No. 135981, 29 September 2000


FACTS:

Marivic Genosa was convicted of Parricide for killing his legitimate husband Ben Genosa
and with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, she was meted the penalty of death. The
case was elevated to the SC for automatic review.

Appellant subsequently filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying for her examination by
expert psychologists and psychiatrist and the reception of latter's reports to prove her claim of
self-defense on the theory of battered woman syndrome.

The SC remanded the case to the trial court for the reception of expert
psychological/psychiatric opinion on the plea of battered woman syndrome.

Marivic Genosa was examined by Dra. Natividad A. Dayan, a clinical psychologist, who
testified that Marivic "fits the profile of a battered woman" and by Dr. Alfredo Parajillo, a
psychiatrist, who "explained that with 'neurotic anxiety', the victim relieves the beating or trauma
as if it were real, although she is not actually beaten at that time" and that at the time Marivic
killed her husband, her "mental condition was that she was "re-experiencing the trauma.' That
the "re-experiencing of the trauma is not controlled by Marivic. It will just come in flashes x x x."

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not appelant acted in self-defense.
2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

HELD:

1) The SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense arising
from battered woman syndrome, to wit:

a) 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.

b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in
the battered person's 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.

c) 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.

2) The SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating circumstance because the quarrel or
argument that preceded the killing must have forewarned the victim of the assailant's
aggression.