PHILIPPINE JURISPURENCE

VIS--VIS

AMERCAN JURISPRUDENCE
COMPARISON OF CASES RE VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THE SELF-DEFENSE OF BATTERED
WOMEN SYNDROME

OVERVIEW
A comparison of two different cases dwelling
on the same topicone of which is tried by
the Philippine courts while the other is that of
an American jurisdictionwill be made in
order to observe how these two different
courts took into consideration the given
circumstances in promulgating their decision.

OVERVIEW
Philippine Jurisprudence on the case of PEOPLE vs.
MARIVIC GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January 15 2004.
This case, stemming from a wife's killing of her husband in
1995, is the first to use "battered woman syndrome" as a
defense.

American jurisprudence on the case of STATE OF NEW

JERSEY, v. GLADYS KELLY, 97 N.J. 178 (1984), 478 A.2d 364
This is a Supreme Court of New Jersey case where the
defendant, Gladys Kelly, was on trial for the murder of her
husband, Ernest Kelly with a pair of scissors.

PEOPLE vs. MARIVIC GENOSA

Facts: Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995,
attacked and wounded her husband, Ben Genosa, which
ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she did
not provoke her husband when she got home that night and it
was her husband who began the provocation. The appellant
said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and
she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely.
Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her
prayer for acquittal on a novel theory -- the battered woman
syndrome (BWS), which allegedly constitutes self-defense.
Under the proven facts, however, she is not entitled to
complete exoneration because there was no unlawful
aggression -- no immediate and unexpected attack on her by
her batterer-husband at the time she shot him.

 DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel
theory of the battered woman syndrome. While new in
Philippine jurisprudence, the concept has been
recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of selfdefense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense. By
appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant is
afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts convey their
understanding of the justifiably fearful state of mind of a
person who has been cyclically abused and controlled
over a period of time.

 The SC in its decision, went on by elaborating the

subject matter using different jurisprudence from foreign
courts such as; Ibn-Tamasv. US,477 A.2d 626, 1979 DC
App. LEXIS 457; McLuckiev. Abbott, 337 F.3d 1193;
2003 US App. LEXIS 15240; DePetrisv. Kuykendall, 239
F.3d 1057; 2001 US App. LEXIS 1062; Statev. Kelley, 478
A.2d 364 (1984); McMaughv. State, 612 A.2d 725 (RI
1992); Statev. Frost, 577 A.2d 1282 (NJ Super. Ct. App.
Div. 1990); Statev. Gallegos, 719 P.2d 1268 (NM Ct. App.
1986); R.v. Lavallee (1990) 1 SCR; Reillyv. The Queen,
(1984) 2 SCR 396; and McMaughv. State; among others.

 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. Battered women include wives or women in
any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, 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.
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low selfesteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female
sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the
tendency to accept responsibility for the batterers actions; and false
hopes that the relationship will improve.
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

 To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the

defense presented several witnesses. She herself described her
heart-rending experience and, Dr. Dino D. Caing bolstered this
foregoing testimony on chronic battery.
Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of
the Genosas in Isabel, Leyte, testified that he had seen the
couple quarreling several times; and that on some occasions
Marivic would run to him with bruises, confiding that the
injuries were inflicted upon her by Ben.
Ecel Arano also testifiedthat for a number of times she had
been asked by Marivic to sleep at the Genosa house, because
the latter feared that Ben would come home drunk and hurt
her.
In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to
testify as an expert witness to assist it in understanding the
psyche of a battered person. She had met with Marivic Genosa
for five sessions totaling about seventeen hours.

Effect of Battery on Appellant

Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused woman, her state of mind metamorphoses. In determining her state of mind, we cannot rely merely
on the judgment of an ordinary, reasonable person who is evaluating the events immediately surrounding the incident.
Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes that he is capable of killing her, and that
there is no escape.[55]Battered women feel unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to leave the relationship. [56]Unless a shelter is available, she stays with her
husband, not only because she typically lacks a means of self-support, but also because she fears that if she leaves she would be found and hurt even more.

The SC, however, 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 intimated
partner;
(b) 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;
(c) (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 perpetuated by the former against the latter.

BWS AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did
not raise any other modifying circumstances that would
alter her penalty, we deem it proper to evaluate and
appreciate in her favor circumstances that mitigate her
criminal liability. It is a hornbook doctrine that an appeal
in a criminal case opens it wholly for review on any
issue, including that which has not been raised by the
parties

 From several psychological tests she had

administered to Marivic, Dra. Dayan, in her
Psychological
Evaluation
Report
dated
November 29, 2000, opined as follows:
This is a classic case of aBattered Woman
Syndrome.
The
repeated
battering
Marivic
experienced with her husband constitutes a form of
[cumulative] provocation which broke down her
psychological resistance and natural self-control. It
is very clear that she developed heightened
sensitivity to sight of impending danger her
husband
posed
continuously.
Marivic
truly
experienced at the hands of her abuser husband a
state of psychological paralysis which can only be
ended by an act of violence on her part

 Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such

manifestations were analogous to an illness that diminished the
exercise by appellant of her will power without, however,
depriving her of consciousness of her acts.There was, thus, a
resulting diminution of her freedom of action, intelligence or
intent. Pursuant to paragraphs 9 and 10of Article 13 of the
Revised Penal Code, this circumstance should be taken in her
favor and considered as a mitigating factor.
As to the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon an
impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and
obfuscation, it has been held that this state of mind is present
when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable burst
of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a
legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason.

 To appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1)

there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of
mind; and (2) this act is not far removed from the commission of the crime by
a considerable length of time, during which the accused might recover her
normal equanimity.
Accordingly, she should further be credited with the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation.
It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological paralysis as
well as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the same set of facts.
On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the
severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon appellant. That is,
the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her psychological
paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the exercise of her will
power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts.
The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the violent aggression
he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the incident occurred when she
was eight months pregnant with their child was deemed by her as an attempt not
only on her life, but likewise on that of their unborn child. Such perception
naturally produced passion and obfuscation on her part

EPILOGUE
Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman
syndrome was neither easy nor simple to analyze and recognize vis--vis
the given set of facts in the present case. The Court agonized on how to
apply the theory as a modern-day reality. It took great effort beyond the
normal manner in which decisions are made -- on the basis of existing
law and jurisprudence applicable to the proven facts. To give a just and
proper resolution of the case, it endeavored to take a good look at
studies conducted here and abroad in order to understand the
intricacies of the syndrome and the distinct personality of the
chronically abused person. Certainly, the Court has learned much. And
definitely, the solicitor general and appellants counsel, Atty. Katrina
Legarda, have helped it in such learning process.
While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we can
only work within the limits of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We
cannot make or invent them. Neither can we amend the Revised Penal
Code. Only Congress, in its wisdom, may do so.

 The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense 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.

 WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic

Genosa for parricide is herebyAFFIRMED. However,
there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance attending her commission
of the offense, her penalty isREDUCEDto six (6) years
and one (1) day ofprision mayoras minimum; to 14
years, 8 months and 1 day ofreclusion temporalas
maximum.
Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more
than the minimum penalty hereby imposed upon her,
the director of the Bureau ofCorrections may
immediatelyRELEASEher from custody upon due
determination that she is eligible for parole, unless
she is being held for some other lawful cause.
Costsde oficio.

STATE vs GLADYS KELLY

Brief Summary: The Defendant, Kelly (Defendant),
stabbed to death her allegedly abusive husband. At
her trial, the Defendant claimed self-defense and
sought to call a psychiatric witness who would
testify that she suffered from battered-womans
syndrome.
Synopsis of Rule of Law: Expert testimony on
battered-womans syndrome is relevant to the issue
of a defendants state of mind at the time of the
murder where there is evidence of a past history of
abuse.

FACTS:The Defendant was allegedly subject to violent

beatings from her husband, sometimes as often as once
a week, over the course of seven years of marriage. The
day of the stabbing, her husband beat her up on the
street after she asked for money to buy groceries.
Passers-by
separated
them,
but
her
husband
subsequently caught up with her again. The Defendant,
thinking her husband had come back to kill her, reached
in her purse for a pair of scissors and stabbed him. At
trial, she proffered the testimony of an expert witness
who would state that her fear for her life was reasonable
insomuch as she suffered from battered-womans
syndrome. The trial court rejected the witness as
irrelevant.

 To establish the requisite state of mind for her selfdefense claim, Ms. Kelly called Dr. Lois Veronen as an
expert witness to testify about the battered-woman's
syndrome. After hearing a lengthy voir dire
examination of Dr. Veronen, the trial court ruled that
expert testimony concerning the syndrome was
inadmissible on the self-defense issue underState v.
Bess,53N.J.10 (1968).
Apparently the court believed that the sole purpose of
this testimony was to explain and justify defendant's
perception of the danger rather than to show the
objective reasonableness of that perception.

Issues discussed by the Court

The central question in this case is whether the trial
court erred in its exclusion of expert testimony on the
battered-woman's syndrome. That testimony was
intended to explain defendant's state of mind and
bolster her claim of self-defense.
The court then went on to examine the nature of the
battered-woman's syndrome and then consider the
expert testimony proffered in this case and its
relevancy.

RELEVANCE OF BWS
In the past decade social scientists and the legal
community began to examine the forces that generate
and perpetuate wife beating and violence in the family.
What has been revealed is [191] that the problem
affects many more people than had been thought and
that the victims of the violence are not only the
battered family members (almost always either the
wife or the children).
Due to the high incidence of unreported abuse (the
FBI and other law enforcement experts believe that
wife abuse is the most unreported crime in the United
States), estimates vary of the number of American
women who are beaten regularly by their husband,
boyfriend, or the dominant male figure in their lives.

RELEVANCE OF BWS
One recent estimate puts the number of women
beaten yearly at over one million. SeeCalifornia
Advisory Comm'n on Family Law, Domestic Violence
app. F at 119 (1st report 1978). The state police
statistics show more than 18,000reported cases of
domestic violence in New Jersey during the first nine
months of 1983, in 83% of which the victim was female.
It is clear that the American home, once assumed to be
the cornerstone of our society, is often a violent place.

BWS DEFINED
As the problem of battered women has begun to receive more
attention, sociologists and psychologists have begun to focus on
the effects a sustained pattern of physical and psychological
[193] abuse can have on a woman. The effects of such abuse are
what some scientific observers have termed "the batteredwoman's syndrome," a series of common characteristics that
appear in women who are abused physically and psychologically
over an extended period of time by the dominant male figure in
their lives.
Dr. Lenore Walker, a prominent writer on the battered-woman's
syndrome, defines the battered woman as one 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. Battered women include wives or
women in any form of intimate relationships with men.

 According to Dr. Walker, relationships characterized by

physical abuse tend to develop battering cycles. Violent
behavior directed at the woman occurs in three distinct
and repetitive stages that vary both in duration and
intensity depending on the individuals involved.L. Walker,
supra,at 55-70.
The cyclical nature of battering behavior helps explain why
more women simply do not leave their abusers. The loving
behavior demonstrated by the batterer during phase three
reinforces whatever hopes these women might have for
their mate's reform and keeps them bound to the
relationship.R. Langley & R. Levy, Wife Beating: The Silent
Crisis112-14 (1977).
Note: this concept of cycles by Dr. Walker has also
been discussed in the PH case of Marivic Genosa

Testimony of expert witness

Whether expert testimony on the battered-woman's syndrome
should be admitted in this case depends on whether it is relevant
to defendant's claim of self-defense, and, in any event, on whether
the proffer meets the standards for admission of expert testimony
in this state. We examine first the law of self-defense and consider
whether the expert testimony is relevant.
The present rules governing the use of force in self-defense are set
out in the justification section of the Code of Criminal Justice. The
use of force against another in self-defense is justifiable "when the
actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary
for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful
force by such other person on the present occasion."N.J.S.A.2C:34(a). Further limitations exist when deadly force is used in selfdefense. The use of such deadly force is not justifiable
unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary
to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

 As can be seen from our discussion of the expert

testimony, Dr. Veronen would have bolstered Gladys Kelly's
credibility. [202] Specifically, by showing that her
experience, although concededly difficult to comprehend,
was common to that of other women who had been in
similarly abusive relationships, Dr. Veronen would have
helped the jury understand that Gladys Kelly could have
honestly feared that she would suffer serious bodily harm
from her husband's attacks, yet still remain with him. This,
in turn, would support Ms. Kelly's testimony about her state
of mind (that is, that she honestly feared serious bodily
harm) at the time of the stabbing.
On the facts in this case, we find that the expert testimony
was relevant to Gladys Kelly's state of mind, namely, it was
admissible to show shehonestlybelieved she was in
imminent danger of death.

State of Necessity
Gladys Kelly claims that she stabbed her husband in selfdefense, believing he was about to kill her. The gist of the
State's case was that Gladys Kelly was the aggressor, that
she consciously intended to kill her husband, and that she
certainly was not acting in self-defense.
The credibility of Gladys Kelly is a critical issue in this case.
If the jury does not believe Gladys Kelly's account, it cannot
find she acted in self-defense. The expert testimony offered
was directly relevant to one of the critical elements of that
account, namely, what Gladys Kelly believed at the time of
the stabbing, and was thus material to establish the honesty
of her stated belief that she was in imminent danger of
death.

 Expert testimony in that direction would be relevant

solely to the honesty of defendant's belief, not its
objective reasonableness. Rather, our conclusion is
that the expert's testimony, if accepted by the jury,
would have aided it in determining whether, under the
circumstances, a reasonable person would have
believed there was imminent danger to her life.

 The crucial issue of fact on which this expert's

testimony would bear is why, given such
allegedly severe and constant beatings,
combined with threats to kill, defendant had
not long ago left decedent. Whether raised by
the prosecutor as a factual issue or not, our
own common knowledge tells us that most of
us, including the ordinary juror, would ask
himself or herself just such a question

 And our knowledge is bolstered by the experts' knowledge, for

the experts point out that one of the common myths,
apparently believed by most people, is that battered wives are
free to leave. To some, this misconception is followed by the
observation that the battered wife is masochistic, proven by
her refusal to leave despite the severe beatings; to others,
however, the fact that the battered wife stays on
unquestionably suggests that the "beatings" could not have
been too bad for if they had been, she certainly would have
left. The expert could clear up these myths, by explaining that
one of the common characteristics of a battered wife is
herinabilityto leave despite such constant beatings; her
"learned helplessness"; her lack of anywhere to go; her feeling
that if she tried to leave, she would be subjected to even more
merciless treatment; her belief in the omnipotence of her
battering husband; and sometimes her hope that her husband

 The difficulty with the expert's testimony is that

itsoundsas if an expert is giving knowledge to a jury
about something the jury knows as well as anyone else,
namely, the reasonableness of a person's fear of
imminent serious danger. That is not at all, however,
what this testimony isdirectlyaimed at. It is aimed at an
area where the purported common knowledge of the
jury may be very much mistaken, an area where jurors'
logic, drawn from their own experience, may lead to a
wholly incorrect conclusion, an area where expert
knowledge would enable the jurors to disregard their
prior conclusions as being common myths rather than
common knowledge.

COURTS JUDGMENT
This Court's opinion presents a cogent and thorough
explanation of the perplexing and tragic condition of
the battered women's syndrome. This condition refers
to a congeries of common traits in women who are
subjected to prolonged physical and psychological
abuse by their mates. Women suffering battered
women's syndrome have low self-esteem, strong
feelings of personal guilt over their failing marriages,
and self-blame for the violence that their mates inflict
upon them.

CONCURRENCE
The case was remanded for further trial.
The Court's opinion explains that the abusive pattern that
characterizes this syndrome is a phenomenon that puzzles
and confuses the untutored lay person. The violence common
to the syndrome is the subject of widespread ignorance and
misinformation. It has spawned myths as to its causes and
distorted stereotypes of its victims.Anteat 192. Some
common misconceptions about battered women include the
beliefs that they are masochistic and actually enjoy their
physical and psychological suffering, that they purposely
provoke their mates into violent behavior and, most critically,
that women who remain in battering relationships are free to
leave their abusers at any time.Id.,citing Walker,supra,at
19-31.

 This Court's enlightened exposition of the battered

women's syndrome, drawn from the record in this
case lays a firm foundation for a determination of the
admissibility of expert testimony relating to the
syndrome in the trial of particular [223] criminal
causes
under
the
Code
of
Criminal
Justice,N.J.S.A.2C:1-1et seq.,and our rules of
evidence
The testimony of the expert witness would have
shown that the Defendant suffered from batteredwomans syndrome. Evidence of this affliction was
relevant to the Defendants case insomuch as it arose
out of a history of physical abuse from her husband
and both explained why she had never left her
husband and why her fear that her husband was going

END.