CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

1E

LEGAL RESEARCH

PEOPLE VS. RITTER

FACTS:
Heinrich Ritter was an Austrian national. On October 10, 1986, at midnight, Ritter brought a boy, Jessie
Ramirez and a girl, Rosario Baluyot to MGM Hotel in Olongapo City. Once inside the hotel room, Ritter
asked the children to take a bath. He then masturbated Jessie and fingered Rosario. Afterwards, he
inserted a foreign object inside the vagina of Rosario. The next morning, Ritter gave Jessie 200 pesos
and Rosario 300 pesos. Rosario told Jessie that Ritter inserted an object inside her vagina but
sometime during the following day, Rosario said that the object has already been removed.
On May 14, 1987, Gaspar Alcantara, a witness for the defense, saw Rosario being ogled by people
because her skirt was bloodied and she was unconscious and foul smelling. Gaspar then brought her to
Olongapo City General Hospital, where she was confined.
Her symptoms showed that she was having peritonitis. Dr. Barcinal tried to remove the object inside her
vagina using forceps but failed because the object was deeply embedded and covered by tissues. At
the time the doctor was examining Rosario, she was conscious and was able to talk to him. When
asked why there was a foreign object lodged insider her vagina, Rosario said that a Negro used her
and inserted and placed the foreign object in her vagina three months ago. On May 20, 1987, Rosario
died and the cause of her death was cardio-respiratory arrest, secondary to septicaemia caused by the
foreign object lodged in her intra uteral vaginal canal.
Based on these facts, the trial court convicted Ritter of rape with homicide. Ritter then appealed to the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ritter was liable for rape and homicide

HELD: No.
Ritter could not be held liable for rape. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that Rosario
was less than 12 years old at the time of the alleged incident in a charge of statutory rape, but in this
case the prosecution failed to do so. The environmental circumstances coupled with the testimonies
and evidence presented in court clearly give the impression that Rosario, a poor street child, was a
prostitute in spite of her tender age.
There was also reasonable doubt as to Ritter causing the death of Rosario by inserting a foreign object
in her vagina. A doctor testified that the inserted object in the vagina of Rosario by Ritter was different
from that which caused her death. As evidence, Rosario herself said to Jessie the following day that the
object has been removed already. She also told the doctor that a Negro inserted it to her vagina 3
months ago. Ritter was a Caucasian.
Ritter was acquitted for the criminal case of rape with homicide. However, this acquittal did not exempt
him for the moral and exemplary damages he must award to the victims heirs. It does not necessarily
follow that the appellant is also free from civil liability which is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action. Also, for acts injurious not only to Rosario but also to the public good and domestic tranquility of
the people, Ritter was deported.

PEOPLE VS. GENOSA

FACTS:
On November 15, 1995, Marivic Genosa attacked and killed her husband, Ben Genosa. According to
Marivic, she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and the baby she was carrying at that
time. She also testified that several times during their marriage, Ben would harm her and she had to
seek medical help for the injuries inflicted upon her.
The trial court convicted Marivic of parricide for killing her husband. With the aggravating circumstance
of treachery, she was meted the penalty of death. This case was then elevated to the Supreme Court
for automatic review.
An Urgent Omnibus Motion was filed, praying for the examination of Marivic by expert psychologists
and psychiatrists and the reception of these reports to prove Marivics claim of self-defense on the
novel theory of the Battered Woman Syndrome. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial
court for the reception of expert psychological and psychiatric opinion on the plea of battered woman
syndrome.
Marivic 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.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Marivic acted in self-defense and defense of her fetus
Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa

HELD:
The defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense arising from battered woman syndrome.
They were not able to prove all the three phases of the cycle of violence supposedly characterizing
the relationship of Ben and Marivic. There was also the absence of unlawful aggression when Marivic
killed her husband. 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. She had already been able to
withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their childrens bedroom. During that time, he
apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he
posed had ended altogether. However, the court considered two mitigating factors of psychological
paralysis and passion & obfuscation.
Treachery did not attend the killing of Ben Genosa. The quarrel or argument that preceded the killing
must have forewarned the victim of the assailants aggression.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Marivic Genosa. However, because of the presence of
two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, her penalty was reduced. Since she
has been detained for more than the minimum penalty imposed, she can now be released on parole.

In People vs. Ritter, the prosecution failed to convict the accused because they were not able to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In People vs. Genosa, the defense failed to have the accused acquitted because they were not able to
prove all the elements of self-defense, or to prove that the accused was suffering from the battered
woman syndrome.
Both cases show that in criminal cases, it is important to provide sufficient evidence in order to convict
or acquit the accused. Even if there is high probability to believe that the accused is guilty or not,
without sufficient evidence, the tide can turn away from your favor.
Also, in criminal cases, it is not always the prosecution who has the burden of proof. When claiming
self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the defense.