the battered woman syndrome as constituting self
PEOPLE vs. GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January 15
2004.
People of the Philippines vs. Marivic Genosa
FACTS:
This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Genosa, by
his wife Marivic Genosa, appellant herein. During
their first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived
happily but apparently thereafter, Ben changed and
the couple would always quarrel and sometimes their
quarrels became violent. Appellant testified that
every time her husband came home drunk, he would
provoke her and sometimes beat her. Whenever
beaten by her husband, she consulted medical
doctors who testified during the trial. On the night of
the killing, appellant and the victim quarreled and the
victim beat the appellant. However, appellant was
able to run to another room. Appellant admitted
having killed the victim with the use of a gun. The
information for parricide against appellant, however,
alleged that the cause of death of the victim was by
beating through the use of a lead pipe. Appellant
invoked self defense and defense of her unborn child.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court found appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
parricide with an aggravating circumstance of
treachery and imposed the penalty of death.
On automatic review before the Supreme Court,
appellant filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION praying
that the Honorable Court allow (1) the exhumation of
Ben Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of
his death; (2) the examination of Marivic Genosa by
qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine
her state of mind at the time she killed her husband;
and finally, (3) the inclusion of the said experts
reports in the records of the case for purposes of the
automatic review or, in the alternative, a partial re-
opening of the case a quo to take the testimony of
said psychologists and psychiatrists. The Supreme
Court partly granted the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION
of the appellant. It remanded the case to the trial
court for reception of expert psychological and/or
psychiatric opinion on the battered woman
syndrome plea. Testimonies of two expert witnesses
on the battered woman syndrome, Dra. Dayan and
Dr. Pajarillo, were presented and admitted by the trial
court and subsequently submitted to the Supreme
Court as part of the records.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke
defense.
2. Whether or not treachery attended the killing of
Ben Genosa.
Ruling:
1. The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed
to prove that she is afflicted with the battered
woman syndrome.
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.
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.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility
of self-defense arising from the battered woman
syndrome. 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.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of
the cycle of violence supposedly characterizing the
relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt
there were acute battering incidents but appellant
failed to prove that in at least another battering
episode in the past, she had gone through a similar
pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient
evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle.
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a
relationship does not in itself establish the legal right
of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence
must still be considered in the context of self-defense.
Settled in our jurisprudence, is the rule that the one
who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on
ones life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be
imminent and actual, not merely imaginary. Thus, the
Revised Penal Code provides that the following
requisites of self-defense must concur: (1) Unlawful
aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) Lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of
self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden and
unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger thereof --
on the life or safety of a person. In the present case,
however, 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. He was no longer in a position that
presented an actual threat on her life or safety.
The mitigating factors of psychological paralysis and
passion and obfuscation were, however, taken in
favor of appellant. 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.
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.
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.
2. NO. Because of the gravity of the resulting offense,
treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing
itself. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when
a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel,
treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance, because the deceased may be said to
have been forewarned and to have anticipated
aggression from the assailant. Moreover, in order to
appreciate alevosia, the method of assault adopted by
the aggressor must have been consciously and
deliberately chosen for the specific purpose of
accomplishing the unlawful act without risk from any
defense that might be put up by the party attacked.
The appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as
to have naturally produced passion or obfuscation.
The acute battering she suffered that fatal night in the
hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that
she was eight (8) months pregnant with their child,
overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid
emotional and mental state, which overcame her
reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and that
of her unborn child.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of
appellant for parricide. However, considering the
presence of two (2) mitigating circumstances and
without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty is
reduced to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum; to 14 years 8 months and 1 day
of reclusion temporal as maximum. Inasmuch as
appellant has been detained for more than the
minimum penalty hereby imposed upon her, the
director of the Bureau of Corrections may
immediately RELEASE her from custody upon due
determination that she is eligible for parole, unless
she is being held for some other lawful cause.
NOTE: After this case was decided by the Supreme
Court, R.A. 9262, otherwise known as Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 was
enacted. Sec. 26 of said law provides that "xxx.
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered women syndrome do not
incur any criminal and civil liability nothwithstanding
the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code.xxx"
Constitutionality of RA 9262 "Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004"
JESUS C. GARCIA vs.THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T.
DRILON
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner Jesus Garcia (husband) appears to have
inflicted violence against private respondent (wife
and daughter). Petitioner admitted having an affair
with a bank manager. He callously boasted about
their sexual relations to the household help. His
infidelity emotionally wounded private respondent.
Their quarrels left her with bruises and hematoma.
Petitioner also unconscionably beat up their
daughter, Jo-ann, whom he blamed for squealing on
him.
All these drove respondent Rosalie Garcia(wife) to
despair causing her to attempt suicide on December
17, 2005 by slitting her wrist. Instead of taking her to
the hospital, petitioner left the house. He never
visited her when she was confined for seven (7) days.
He even told his mother-in-law that respondent
should just accept his extramarital affair since he is
not cohabiting with his paramour and has not sired a
child with her.
The private respondent was determined to separate
from petitioner. But she was afraid he would take
away their children and deprive her of financial
support. He warned her that if she pursued legal
battle, she would not get a single centavo from him.
After she confronted him of his affair, he forbade her
to hold office. This deprived her of access to full
information about their businesses.
Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe
there was imminent danger of violence against
respondent and her children and issued a series of
Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) ordering
petitioner, among other things, to surrender all his
firearms including a .9MM caliber firearm and a
Walther PPK.
Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of RA 9262
for
1. making a gender-based classification, thus, providing
remedies only to wives/women and not to
husbands/men.
2. He claims that even the title of the law, "An Act
Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children"
is already sex-discriminatory because it means
violence by men against women.
3. The law also does not include violence committed by
women against children and other women.
4. He adds that gender alone is not enough basis to
deprive the husband/father of the remedies under it
because its avowed purpose is to curb and punish
spousal violence. The said remedies are
discriminatory against the husband/male gender.
5. There being no reasonable difference between an
abused husband and an abused wife, theequal
protection guarantee is violated.
Important and Essential Governmental Objectives:
1. Safeguard Human Rights,
2. Ensure Gender Equality and
3. Empower Women
International Laws
By constitutional mandate, the Philippines is
committed to ensure that human rights and
fundamental freedoms are fully enjoyed by everyone.
1. It was one of the countries that voted in favor of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In
addition, the Philippines is a signatory to many United
Nations human rights treaties such as the
2. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,
3. the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the
4. Convention Against Torture, and the
5. Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others.
UDHR
As a signatory to the UDHR, the Philippines pledged
itself to achieve the promotion of universal respect
for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, keeping in mind the standards under the
Declaration. Among the standards under the UDHR
are the following:
 Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood.
xxxx
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal
protection against any discrimination in violation of
this Declaration and against any incitement to such
discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective
remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.
Declaration of Policy in RA 9262
enunciates the purpose of the said law, which is to
fulfill the governments obligation to safeguard the
dignity and human rights of women and children by
providing effective remedies against domestic
violence or physical, psychological, and other forms of
abuse perpetuated by the husband, partner, or father
of the victim.
The said law is also viewed within the context of the
constitutional mandate to ensure gender equality,
which is quoted as follows:
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in
nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.
ISSUE: WON R.A. NO. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY,
UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE.
HELD:
RA 9262 is NOT UNCONSITUTIONAL.
1. RA 9262 - compliance with the CEDAW
It has been acknowledged that "gender-based
violence is a form of discrimination that seriously
inhibits women's ability to enjoy rights and freedoms
on a basis of equality with men." RA 9262 can be
viewed therefore as the Philippines compliance with
the CEDAW, which is committed to condemn
discrimination against women and directs its
members to undertake, without delay, all appropriate
means to eliminate discrimination against women in
all forms both in law and in practice.
CEDAW
Known as the International Bill of Rights of
Women, the CEDAW is the central and most
comprehensive document for the advancement of the
welfare of women. The CEDAW, in its preamble,
explicitly acknowledges the existence of extensive
discrimination against women, and emphasized that
such is a violation of the principles of equality of
rights and respect for human dignity.
2. Philippines obligation as state-party to CEDAW
The Philippines is under legal obligation to ensure
their development and advancement for the
improvement of their position from one of de jure as
well as de facto equality with men. The CEDAW, going
beyond the concept of discrimination used in many
legal standards and norms, focuses on discrimination
against women, with the emphasis that women have
suffered and are continuing to suffer from various
forms of discrimination on account of their biological
sex.
The governmental objectives of protecting human
rights and fundamental freedoms, which
includespromoting gender equality and empowering
women, as mandated not only by our Constitution,
but also by commitments we have made in
the international sphere, are undeniably important
and essential.
RA 9262 provides the widest range of reliefs for
women and children who are victims of violence,
which are often reported to have been committed not
by strangers, but by a father or a husband or a person
with whom the victim has or had a sexual or dating
relationship.
3. The Gender-Based Classification in RA 9262 is
Substantially Related to the Achievement of
Governmental Objectives
Historical Perspective:
A foreign history professor noted that: "from the
earliest civilizations on, the subjugation of women, in
the form of violence, were facts of life,
Judeo-Christian religious ideas; Greek philosophy;
and the Common Law Legal Code: all
"assumed patriarchy as natural; that is, male
 domination stemming from the view of male
superiority."
18th century legal expert William Blackstone,
reflected the theological assumption that: husband
and wife were one body before God; thus "they
were one person under the law, and that one person
was the husband," a concept that evidently found its
way in some of our Civil Code provisions prior to the
enactment of the Family Code.
Society and tradition dictate that the culture of
patriarchy continues. Men are expected to take on
the dominant roles both in the community and in the
family. This perception naturally leads to men gaining
more power over women power, which must
necessarily be controlled and maintained. Violence
against women is one of the ways men control
women to retain such power.
In ancient western societies, women whether slave,
concubine or wife, were under the authority of men.
In law, they were treated as property.
The Roman concept of patria potestas allowed the
husband to beat, or even kill, his wife if she
endangered his property right over her.
Judaism, Christianity and other religions oriented
towards the patriarchal family strengthened the male
dominated structure of society.
English feudal law reinforced the tradition of male
control over women.
However, in the late 1500s and through the entire
1600s, English common law began to limit the right of
husbands to chastise their wives. Thus, common law
developed the rule of thumb, which allowed
husbands to beat their wives with a rod or stick no
thicker than their thumb.
Statistics:
The enactment of RA 9262 was in response to the
undeniable numerous cases involving violence
committed against women in the Philippines.
In 2012, the Philippine National Police (PNP)
reported that 65% or 11,531 out of 15,969 cases
involving violence against women were filed under RA
9262.
From 2004 to 2012, violations of RA. 9262 ranked
first among the different categories of violence
committed against women. The number of reported
cases showed an increasing trend from 2004 to 2012,
The law recognizes, with valid factual support
based on statistics that women and children are the
most vulnerable victims of violence, and therefore
need legal intervention. On the other hand, there is a
dearth of empirical basis to anchor a conclusion that
men need legal protection from violence
perpetuated by women.
4. Different treatment of women and men based on
biological, social, and cultural differences
The persistent and existing biological, social, and
cultural differences between women and men
prescribe that they be treated differently under
particular conditions in order to achieve substantive
equality for women. Thus, the disadvantaged position
of a woman as compared to a man requires the
special protection of the law, as gleaned from the
following recommendations of
the CEDAWCommittee:
The Convention requires that women be given an
equal start and that they be empowered by an
enabling environment to achieve equality of results. It
is not enough to guarantee women treatment that is
identical to that of men. Rather, biological as well as
socially and culturally constructed differences
between women and men must be taken into account.
Under certain circumstances, non-identical treatment
of women and men will be required in order to
address such differences. Pursuit of the goal of
substantive equality also calls for an effective strategy
aimed at overcoming under representation of women
and a redistribution of resources and power between
men and women.
Equality of results is the logical corollary of de
facto or substantive equality. These results may be
quantitative and/or qualitative in nature; that is,
women enjoying their rights in various fields in fairly
equal numbers with men, enjoying the same income
levels, equality in decision-making and political
influence, and women enjoying freedom from
violence.
The governments commitment to ensure that the
status of a woman in all spheres of her life are parallel
to that of a man, requires the adoption and
implementation of ameliorative measures, such as RA
9262. Unless the woman is guaranteed that the
violence that she endures in her private affairs will
not be ignored by the government, which is
committed to uplift her to her rightful place as a
human being, then she can neither achieve
substantive equality nor be empowered.
5. RA 9262 justified under the Constitution
The Constitution abundantly authorize Congress or
the government to actively undertake ameliorative
 action that would remedy existing inequalities and
inequities experienced by women and children
brought about by years of discrimination. The equal
protection clause when juxtaposed to this provision
provides a stronger mandate for the government to
combat such discrimination. Indeed, these provisions
order Congress to "give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the
right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic, and political inequalities and remove
cultural inequities."
RA 9262 is THE ameliorative action
In enacting R.A. 9262, Congress has taken
an ameliorative action that would address the evil
effects of the social model of patriarchy, a pattern
that is deeply embedded in the societys
subconscious, on Filipino women and children and
elevate their status as human beings on thesame
level as the father or the husband.
R.A. 9262 aims to put a stop to the cycle of male
abuses borne of discrimination against women. It is
an ameliorative measure, not a form of "reverse
discrimination" against.Ameliorative action "is not an
exception to equality, but an expression and
attainment of de facto equality, the genuine and
substantive equality which the Filipino people
themselves enshrined as a goal of the 1987
Constitution." Ameliorative measures are necessary
as a redistributive mechanism in an unequal society to
achieve substantive equality.
Ameliorative measures to achieve substantive
equality
In the context of womens rights, substantive
equality has been defined by the Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) as equality which requires that
women be given an equal start and that they be
empowered by an enabling environment to achieve
equality of results. It is not enough to guarantee
women treatment that is identical to that of men.
Rather, biological as well as socially and culturally
constructed differences between women and men
must be taken into account. Under certain
circumstances, non-identical treatment of women
and men will be required in order to address such
differences.
Womens struggle for equality with men has evolved
under three models:
1. Formal equality - women and men are to be
regarded and treated as the same. But this model
does not take into account biological and socially
constructed differences between women and men. By
failing to take into account these differences, a formal
equality approach may in fact perpetuate
discrimination and disadvantage.
2. Protectionist model this recognizes differences
between women and men but considerswomens
weakness as the rationale for different
treatment. This approach reinforces the inferior
status of women and does not address the issue of
discrimination of women on account of their gender.
3. Substantive equality model this assumes that
women are "not vulnerable by nature, but suffer
from imposed disadvantage" and that "if these
imposed disadvantages were eliminated, there was
no further need for protection." Thus, the substantive
equality model gives prime importance to womens
contexts, realities, and experiences, and the
outcomes or results of acts and measures directed, at
or affecting them, with a view to eliminating the
disadvantages they experience as women.
6. The gender-based classification of RA 9262 does not
violate the Equal Protection Clause(application of the
substantive equality model)
The equal protection clause in our Constitution does
not guarantee an absolute prohibition against
classification. The non-identical treatment of women
and men under RA 9262 is justified to put them on
equal footing and to give substance to the policy and
aim of the state to ensure the equality of women and
men in light of the biological, historical, social, and
culturally endowed differences between men and
women.
RA 9262, by affording special and exclusive protection
to women and children, who are vulnerable victims of
domestic violence, undoubtedly serves the important
governmental objectives of protecting human rights,
insuring gender equality, and empowering women.
The gender-based classification and the special
remedies prescribed by said law in favor of women
and children are substantially related, in fact
essentially necessary, to achieve such objectives.
Hence, said Act survives the intermediate review or
middle-tier judicial scrutiny. The gender-based
classification therein is therefore not violative of the
equal protection clause embodied in the 1987
Constitution.
Justice Brion: As traditionally viewed, the
constitutional provision of equal protection simply
requires that similarly situated persons be treated in
the same way. It does not connote identity of rights
among individuals, nor does it require that every
person is treated identically in all circumstances. It
acts as a safeguard to ensure that State-drawn
distinctions among persons are based on reasonable
classifications and made pursuant to a proper
governmental purpose. In short, statutory
classifications are not unconstitutional when shown
to be reasonable and made pursuant to a legitimate
government objective.
R.A. No. 9262 as a measure intended to strengthen
the family. Congress found that domestic and other
forms of violence against women and children
contribute to the failure to unify and strengthen
family ties, thereby impeding the States mandate to
actively promote the familys total development.
Congress also found, as a reality, that women and
children are more susceptible to domestic and other
forms of violence due to, among others, the
pervasive bias and prejudice against women and the
stereotyping of roles within the family environment
that traditionally exist in Philippine society. On this
basis, Congress found it necessary to recognize the
substantial distinction within the family between
men, on the one hand, and women and children, on
the other hand. This recognition, incidentally, is not
the first to be made in the laws as our law on persons
and family under the Civil Code also recognize, in
various ways, the distinctions between men and
women in the context of the family.
Justice Leonen: It may be said that violence in the
context of intimate relationships should not be seen
and encrusted as a gender issue; rather, it is a power
issue.
By concurring with these statements I express a hope:
that the normative constitutional requirements of
human dignity and fundamental equality can become
descriptive reality. The socially constructed
distinctions between women and men that have
afflicted us and spawned discrimination and violence
should be eradicated sooner. Power and intimacy
should not co-exist.
The intimate spaces created by our human
relationships are our safe havens from the helter
skelter of this world. It is in that space where we grow
in the safety of the special other who we hope will be
there for our entire lifetime. If that is not possible,
then for such time as will be sufficient to create
cherished memories enough to last for eternity.
I concur in the ponencia. Against abominable acts, let
this law take its full course.
Justice Abad: RA 9262 is a historic step in the Filipino
women's long struggle to be freed from a long-held
belief that men are entitled, when displeased or
minded, to hit their wives or partners and their
children. This law institutionalizes prompt community
response to this violent behavior through barangay
officials who can command the man to immediately
desist from harming his home partner and their
children. It also establishes domestic violence as a
crime, not only against its victims but against society
as well. No longer is domestic violence lightly
dismissed as a case of marital dispute that law
enforcers ought not to get into.
Chief Justice Puno on Expanded Equal protection and
Substantive Equality
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno espouses that the equal
protection clause can no longer be interpreted as only
a guarantee of formal equality but of substantive
equality. "It ought to be construed in consonance
with social justice as the heart particularly of the
1987 Constitutiona transformative covenant in
which the Filipino people agreed to
enshrine asymmetrical equality to uplift
disadvantaged groups and build a genuinely
egalitarian democracy." This means that the weak,
including women in relation to men, can be treated
with a measure of bias that they may cease to be
weak.
Chief Justice Puno goes on: "The Expanded Equal
Protection Clause, anchored on the human rights
rationale, is designed as a weapon against the
indignity of discrimination so that in the patently
unequal Philippine society, each person may be
restored to his or her rightful position as a person
with equal moral status."