1. The ruling of Supreme Court in the landmark case of People vs.

Genosa
G.R. No. 135981, January 1, 2004, raises the novel theory of the battered
woman syndrome. Discuss the concept as applied in Philippine
jurisprudence and how does the court appreciate the evidence as a valid
defense under Battered Woman Syndrome.

Battered woman
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 any concern for her rights.

NOTE: In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go

through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an
abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she
remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman (People v.
Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).

“Battered Woman Syndrome" (BWS)

It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse [RA 9262, Sec. 3(c)].
Battery
It is any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting
to physical, psychological or emotional distress [RA 9262, Sec. 3(b)].
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of
violence, which has 3 phases:
1. Tension building phase;
2. Acute battering incident; and
3. Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent) phase.
NOTE: The defense should prove all three (3) phases of cycle of
violence characterizing the relationship of the parties (People v.
Genosa, ibid).
BWS used as a defense (BAR 2014, 2015)
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding
the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the RPC (RA 9262, Sec. 26).
In layman’s terms, if an abused woman kills or inflicts physical injuries on her
abusive husband or live-in partner, and the trial court determines that she is
suffering from “Battered Woman Syndrome,” the court will declare her not
guilty (People v. Genosa, ibid.).
The law now allows the battered woman syndrome as a valid defense in the
crime of parricide independent of self-defense under the RPC (RA 9262,
Sec. 26).
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering
from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime,
the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists (RA 9262,
Sec. 26).
NOTE: Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist can prove the existence
of a Battered Woman Syndrome in a woman.
Women who can avail of BWS as a defense
1. Wife;
2. Former wife;
3. A woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship;
NOTE: The “dating relationship” that the law contemplates can exist even
without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved.
4. A woman with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode.
Relatives covered under the justifying circumstance
1. Spouse;
2. Ascendants;
3. Descendants;
4. Legitimate, adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the
same degrees (namely: ascendants-in-law, descendants-in-law, and
siblings-in-law); and
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.

NOTE: If the degree of consanguinity or affinity is beyond the fourth degree,

it will be considered defense of a stranger.
NOTE: Death of one spouse does not terminate the relationship by affinity
established between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the
deceased (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong v.
People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
NOTE: Motive is relative in this kind of defense.
2. Paragraph 3, Art.12 RPC impliedly repelled by republic Act No. 9344
declaring a child fifteen years of age or under shall be exempt from criminal
liability. Discuss the law providing minimum age of criminal responsibility.
MINORITY
ART. 12(2 and 3), RPC
as amended by RA 9344, as further amended by RA 10630
Discernment
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong including the capacity to fully appreciate the consequences
of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined
by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the
records in each case, the manner the crime was committed, and the conduct
of the offender after its commission (People v. Doqueña, G.R. No 46539,
September 27, 1939).
Intent vis-à-vis Discernment
INTENT DISCERNMENT
The determination to do a certain The mental capacity to tell right from
thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. wrong. It relates to the moral
It is the design to resolve or significance that a person ascribes to
determination by which a person acts. his act and relates to the intelligence
as an element of dolo.
MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TREATMENT OF CHILD BELOW THE AGE OF
RESPONSIBILITY
(RA 9344, as amended by RA CRIMINAL LIABILITY TREATMENT
10630) AGE BRACKET
15 years old or below. Exempt. The child shall be subjected to a
community-based intervention
program.

Above 15 but below 18, who
acted without discernment.
Above 15 but below 18, who
acted with discernment.
Exempt. The child shall be subjected to a
community-based intervention
program.
Not exempt. Such child shall be subjected to a
diversion program.

NOTE: The exemption from criminal liability in the cases specified above does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws (RA 9344, as amended by RA
10630, Sec. 6).
3. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or causing it. Give the element and
examples of accident and Explain.

ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT

ART. 12(4), RPC
Conditions necessary to exempt a person from liability under
subsection 4 of Article 12 of RPC
1. That the act causing the injury be lawful; that is, permitted not only by law
but also by regulations;
2. That it be performed with due care;
3. That the injury be caused by mere accident, i.e., by an unforeseen event;
and
4. That there be no fault or intention to cause the injury.

NOTE: If not all the conditions necessary to exempt from liability, the act
should be considered as:
a. Reckless imprudence, if the act is executed without taking those
precautions of measures which the most common prudence would require;
or
b. Simple imprudence, if it is a mere lack of precaution in those cases where
either the threatened harm is not imminent or the danger is not openly visible.

Accident
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and
although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds
of humanly foreseeable consequences. It presupposes a lack of intention to
commit the wrong done.
4. What is the basis of circumstances which exempt from criminal
liability under Art. 12 of the RPC?
The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on
the part of the accused. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person must act
with malice or negligence to be criminally liable. One who acts without
intelligence, freedom of action or intent does not act with malice. On the other
hand, one who acts without intelligence, freedom of action or fault does not
act with negligence.
5. What is the basis of circumstances under Art. 13 of the RPC? Give
the classes of mitigating circumstances.
Basis
Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of either freedom of action,
intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender.

Classes of mitigating circumstances

1. Ordinary mitigating; and
2. Privileged mitigating.

Ordinary mitigating PRIVILEGED

vis-à-vis Privileged MITIGATING
mitigating
ORDINARY
MITIGATING
Can be offset by Can never be offset by
aggravating any aggravating
circumstances. circumstance.
Ordinary mitigating Privileged mitigating
circumstances, if not circumstances operate
offset, will operate to to reduce the penalty
reduce the penalty to by one to two degrees,
the minimum period, depending upon what
provided the penalty the law provides.
is a divisible one.
6. What is the basis of the Aggravating circumstances under. Art. 14 of the
RPC? And give the kinds of Aggravating circumstances, explain each.

Basis
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the
commission of the felony as shown by:
(1) the motivating power itself, (2) the place of commission,
(3) the means and ways employed, (4) the time, or (5) the personal
circumstances of the offender, or of the offended party.

Four kinds of aggravating circumstances.

1. Generic — Those that can generally apply to all crimes.
Example — Dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism.
In Art. 14, the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6,
9 , 1 0 , 1 4 , 1 8 , 1 9 , and 20, except "by means of motor vehicles," are
generic aggravating circumstances.

2. Specific — Those that apply only to particular crimes.

Example — Ignominy in crimes against chastity or cruelty and treachery in
crimes against persons. In Art. 14, the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 3
(except dwelling), 15,16,17 and 21 are specific aggravating circumstances.

3. Qualifying — Those that change the nature of the crime.

Example — Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the
killing of a person to murder. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying
aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing of person to murder.

4. Inherent — Those that must of necessity accompany the

commission of the crime. (Art. 62, par. 2) Example — Evident
premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and
concubinage.
7. Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of
increasing the penalty.

1. Aggravating circumstances (a) which in themselves constitute a

crime specially punishable by law, or (b) which are included by
the law in denning a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor
shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty. (Art. 62, par. 1)

Examples:
a. "That the crime be committed by means of xxx fire, x x
x explosion" (Art. 14, par. 12) is in itself a crime of arson
(Art. 321) or crime involving destruction. (Art. 324) It is
not to be considered to increase the penalty for the crime
of arson or for the crime involving destruction.
b. "That the act x x x be committed in the dwelling of the
offended party" (Art. 14, par. 3) or "that the crime be committed
after an unlawful entry" (Art. 14, par. 18), or "that
as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor,
door, or window be broken (Art. 14, par. 19) is included by
Art. 299 in denning robbery in an inhabited house. It shall
not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty for that kind of robbery.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating
circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must
of necessity accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62, par. 2)
Examples:
a. Evident premeditation is inherent in theft, robbery, estafa,
adultery and concubinage.
b. Taking advantage of public position is inherent in crimes
where the offenders, who are public officers, committed the
crime in the exercise of their functions, such as in bribery,
malversation, etc.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
8. Art. 15. Their concept.

— Alternative circumstances are

those w h i c h must b e t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s a g g r a v
a t i ng
or m i t i g a t i n g a c c o r d i n g t o t h e n a t u r e a n d effects o f t h e
crime
and t h e other c o n d i t i o n s a t t e n d i n g i t s commission. They are
the relationship, intoxication, and t h e degree of i n s t r u c t i on
and e d u c a t i o n of t h e offender.
The a l t e r n a t i v e c i r c u m s t a n c e of r e l a t i o n s h i p shall be
takenintoconsiderationwhentheoffendedpartyist
he
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brother o r sister, or r e l a t i v e by affinity i n t h e s a m e d e g r e e of
t h e offender.
The i n t o x i c a t i o n of t h e offender shall be t a k e n i n t o cons
i d e r a t i o n as a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance w h e n t h e offender
has committed a felony in a s t a t e of i n t o x i c a t i o n , i f t h e same is
not habitual o r s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e p l a n t o commit s a i d felony;
but w h e n t h e i n t o x i c a t i o n i s habitual or i n t e n t i o n a l , i t shall
be c o n s i d e r e d as an a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance.

9.

The law is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and when

it is aggravating.
As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property,
by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332.
Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery (Arts.
294-302), usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314), and
arson. (Arts. 321-322, 325-326)
Under Art. 332 of the Code, no criminal, but only civil, liability
shall result from commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants, and
descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and
sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
In view of the provision of Art. 332, when the crime committed
is (1) theft, (2) swindling or estafa, or (3) malicious mischief, relationship
is exempting. The accused is not criminally liable and there is no
occasion to consider a mitigating or an aggravating circumstance.
It is aggravating in crimes against persons in cases where the
offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender, or
when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same
level, as killing a brother (People vs. Alisub, 69 Phil. 362, 364), a
brother-in-law (People vs. Mercado, 51 Phil. 99, 102; People vs.
Mendova, 100 Phil. 811, 818), a half-brother (People vs. Nargatan,
48 Phil. 470, 472, 475), or adopted brother. (People vs. Macabangon,
63 Phil. 1061-1062 [Unrep.])
Is relationship not aggravating when the offender killed his brotherin-
law?
Except an admission by the appellant that the deceased was
his brother-in-law, relationship by affinity should not be deemed to
aggravate the crime in the absence of evidence to show that the offended
party is of a higher degree in the relationship than that of the
offender. (People vs. Canitan, No. L-16498, June 29, 1963, 8 SCRA
358, 364)
Intoxication as an alternative circumstance
It is an alternative circumstance because it impairs the exercise of one’s will-power. When a person is under
the influence of liquor, his exercise of will power is impaired and his resistance to evil is lessened (People
v. Tambis, G.R. No. 124452, July 28, 1999).