Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Explain the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).

(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

APPLICATION OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW EXPLAINED

In the case of People vs. Gabres , the Court has had occasion to so state that-

“Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law”, the maximum term of the penalty shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense. The penalty next lower should be
based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense,without first considering any modifying circumstance
attendant to the commission of the crime.

The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can be
anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into which it might be
subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.”The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be
considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter should be so taken as
analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate
sentence.This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the
accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision correccional
maximum to prision mayor, minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional minimum to
medium .Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one
(1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months . . .”(People v. Saley; GR 121179, July 2, ’98)

[a] Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. (2.5%)

[b] Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) MALFEASANCE – means the “Commission of an Unlawful Act”. The term is generally made applicable to
certain unlawful acts which are actionable per se. It does not require any proof of intention, negligence or malice on
the part of the defendant.

For EXAMPLE, the act of trespass, the plaintiff can take action against the trespasser for his mere act of trespass,
through there might be negligence or malice on the part of the trespasser.

MISFEASANCE – means the “Improper performance of some lawful act”. Under certain a particular
circumstances a man has a duty to perform ac act in manner, if he fails to perform that act in a proper manner, it
will be an act of “misfeasance”. The tort of negligence may arise from the improper performance of some lawful
act, i.e. act of ‘misfeasance’.

For EXAMPLE, if doctor performs an operation by using rusted tools or leaving an alien object in the stomach
during procedure. Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care
toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the
improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff. For example, assume that a janitor is cleaning a restroom in
a restaurant. If he leaves the floor wet, he or his employer could be liable for any injuries resulting from the wet
floor. This is because the janitor owed a duty of care toward users of the restroom, and he breached that duty by
leaving the floor wet.
NONFEASANCE – means “Failure or Omission to perform some act when there was an obligation to perform
that act”. The tort of negligence may arrive from nonfeasance. When a person owes a duty towards another to do
particular act, a failure to do that act may result in an injury to that another, thus the nonfeasance of such an act
gives rise to a cause of action

EXAMPLE: A company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party. If the catering
company doesn’t show up , it’s considered nonfeasance . If the catering company shows up but only provides
drinks (and not the food, which was also paid for), it’s considered misfeasance . If the catering company accepts a
bribe from its client’s competitor to under cook the meat, thereby giving those present food poisoning, its
considered malfeasance.

(b) A wheel conspiracy consists of a single conspirator, generally the ringleader who is interconnected to every other
co-conspirator. The ringleader is the hub; the other co-conspirators are the spokes of the wheel. An example of a
wheel conspiracy would be a mob boss linked to individual members of the mob following his or her commands.

A chain conspiracy consists of co-conspirators connected to each other like links in a chain but without a central
interconnected ringleader. An example of a chain conspiracy is a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a
controlled substance, with the manufacturer linked to the transporter, who sells to a large-quantity dealer, who
thereafter sells to a smaller-quantity dealer, who sells to a customer. Whether the conspiracy is wheel, chain, or
otherwise, if the jurisdiction has a statute or common-law rule that each member does not need to personally know
every other member as discussed previously, the co-conspirators may be criminally responsible for the conspiracy
and the crime(s) it furthers.

Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing Juan.
Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head which caused the latter’s
death.

Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a relative? Explain. (5%)

No, Pedro cannot be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a relative. The person being
attacked, Juan, is the first cousin of Tessie. For purposes of applying the provisions of defense of a relative, the first
cousin of a wife does not fall within the degree of relationship required for the defense of relatives by affinity.

However, Pedro may be absolved on the ground of defense of a stranger. First, there is unlawful aggression.
Second, it appears that Pedro is not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. Third, the means
employed to repel the aggression is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of
their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay- at-home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived
home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in
their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot Alma,
immediately killing her.

[a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse? (2.5%)

[b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%)

(a) Yes, Art. 247 Revised Penal Code (RPC) is applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same
gender as the erring spouse.
“Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who
having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them
or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.

(b) Adultery is committed by a wife (who must also be charged together with the other man). It cannot be
committed in a same sex relationship such as a complaint by a husband against his wife with a woman or by wife
against his husband with a man.

Governor A was given the amount of PIO million by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of buying
seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. Supposedly intending to modernize the farming industry in his province,
Governor A bought farm equipment through direct purchase from XY Enterprise, owned by his kumpare B, the
alleged exclusive distributor of the said equipment. Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered that B has a pending
patent application for the said farm equipment. Moreover, the equipment purchased turned out to be overpriced.
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Governor A? Explain. (5%)Crimes were committed by Governor
A in violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 provides:

SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.

In order to be liable for violating the law, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is a public officer or
a private person charged in conspiracy with the former; (2) he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the
government or a private party; (3) the said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his
or her official duties or in relation to his or her public positions; (4) such undue injury is caused by giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5) the public officer has acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale ofjewelry, was charged with violation of PD 1612, otherwise known as the
Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her
jewelry shop. Her defense is that she merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a receipt covering the
sale. She presented other receipts given to her by Antonia representing previous transactions. Convicted of the
charge, Ofelia appealed, arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted from a legal transaction and that the
prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the pieces of jewelry which she bought from
Antonia were proceeds of the crime of theft.

[a] What is a “fence” under PD 1612? (2.5%)

[b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%)

(a) “Fence” includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which
commits the act of fencing.
(b) Yes, under section 6 of PD 1612, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good,
article item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier shall secure the necessary
clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located before offering the same for sale to the public. In this case, Ofelia failed to
obtain a clearance for the public sale of the said jewelry. Therefore, is convicted to be punished as a fence.

Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines. The investors would buy the raw materials at a low price from
Val. The raw materials consisted of powders, which the investors would mix with water and let stand until a gel was formed.
Val made a written commitment to the investors that he would buy back the gel at a higher price, thus assuring the investors
of a neat profit. When the amounts to be paid by Val to the investors reached millions ofpesos, he sold all the equipment of
his perfume business, absconded with the money, and is nowhere to be found. What crime or crimes were committed, if any?
Explain. (5%)

Charges d’affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a psychotic disorder after he was almost assassinated in his previous
assignment. One day, while shopping in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he thought were the assassins who were out
to kill him. He asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten (10) people and wounded five (5) others before he was subdued.
The wounded persons required more than thirty (30) days of medical treatment. What crime or crimes, if any, did he commit?
Explain. (5%)

A is the driver of B’s Mercedes Benz car. When B was on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C whom he is
courting. Unfortunately, A met an accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the unauthorized use of the car and sued
A for qualified theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent to gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from
its use. On the other hand, A argued that he has no intent of making himself the owner of the car as he in fact returned it to
the garage after the joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)

Carnapping

The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in Panama, was 300 nautical miles from Aparri, Cagayan when its engines
malfunctioned. The Captain ordered his men to drop anchor and repair the ship. While the officers and crew were
asleep, armed men boarded the vessel and took away several crates containing valuable items and loaded them in
their own motorboat. Before the band left, they planted an explosive which they detonated from a safe distance.
The explosion damaged the hull of the ship, killed ten (10) crewmen, and injured fifteen (15) others.

What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)

Piracy

Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who underwent gender reassignment and had implants in different parts of her body. She
changed her name to Angelina and was a finalist in the Miss Gay International. She came back to the Philippines and while she
was walking outside her home, she was abducted by Max and Razzy who took her to a house in the province. She was then
placed in a room and Razzy forced her to have sex with him at knife’s point. After the act, it dawned upon Razzy that
Angelina is actually a male. Incensed, Razzy called Max to help him beat Angelina. The beatings that Angelina received
eventually caused her death. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)

Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a bench in Luneta Park watching the statue of Jose Rizal when, without his
permission, Leilani, 17 years of age, sat beside him and asked for financial assistance, allegedly for payment of her
tuition fee, in exchange for sex. While they were conversing, police operatives arrested and charged him with
violation of Section 10 of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act), accusing him of having in his company a minor, who is not related to him, in a public place. It
was established that Arnold was not in the performance of a social, moral and legal duty at that time.

Is Arnold liable for the charge? Explain. (5%)


Domingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows and two (2) horses owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to lend
the cows to Tristan on the condition that the latter will give a goat to the former when the cows are returned.
Instead, Tristan sold the cows and pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of Domingo, one of the horses was
stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the loss, Domingo slaughtered the other horse, got the meat, and sold it
to Pastor. He later reported to Hannibal that the two horses were stolen.

[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan commit? Explain. (2.5%)

[b] What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Domingo? Explain. (2.5%)

Estafa

Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer, inventoried
and photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory was signed by
Macario and the tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with flu the day after, he was able to
surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio
of Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in fact
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas was convicted ofviolating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal,
Dimas questioned the admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to observe the requisite “chain of
custody” of the alleged “shabu” seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor General claimed that despite
non-compliance with some requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the substance was
preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the requirements, the counsel of Dimas stipulated that the
substance seized from Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed.

[a] What is the “chain of custody” requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%)

[b] Rule on the contention of the State. (2.5%)

Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bolos, robbed the house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3)
daughters were residing. While the four were ransacking Antonio’s house, Julio noticed that one of Antonio’s
daughters was trying to escape. He chased and caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from the house, but
before bringing her back, raped her.

[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio commit? Explain. (2.5%)

[b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters inside the house, and, to prevent
identification, killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes, if any, did the four malefactors
commit? (2.5%)

Robbery with rape

Pedro,Pablito, and Juan committed conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery, while Julio commited the crime of
robbery with rape.

Conspiracy is commited when two or more person come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it, while
Robbery is committed by any person who with intent to gain, by means of violence, intimidation or force upon
things, shall take the property of another.

In the given facts of the case, there is a clear showing that Pedro, Pablito,Juan and Julio conspire to rob Antonio’s
house having armed with bolos. Julio, raped the daughter of Antonio away from the others and withouth their
knowledge.
Hence, Pedro,Pablito and Juan commited the crime of robbery while Julio committed the crime of robbery with
rape.

b) All of them committed the crime of robbery with rape and homicide.

A is the president of the corporate publisher of the daily tabloid, Bulgar; B is the managing editor; and C is the
author/writer. In his column, Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner ofthe BIR-RDO Manila as follows:

“!tong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka suwapang na buwaya. Ang
nickname niya ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay 10% /ang. Kaya
ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya. Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tangga/in itong bundat na bundat na
buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot.”

A, Band C were charged with libel before the RTC of Manila. The three (3) defendants argued that the article is
within the ambit of qualified privileged communication; that there is no malice in law and in fact; and, that
defamatory comments on the acts of public officials which are related to the discharge of their official duties do not
constitute libel.

Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all liable for the crime? Explain. (5%)

Answer 1: Yes, the crime of libel was committed.

They cannot claim cover under the doctrine of qualified


privileged communication:

In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article
354, No. 1, as claimed by petitioner, the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the
communication had a legal, moral, or
social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own
or of the one to whom it is made;

(2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or


superior, having some interest or duty in the matter,
and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and

(3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith


and without malice.

All of them can be held liable for the crime.

The language of Art. 360 of the RPC is plain. It lists the persons
responsible for libel:

Art. 360. Persons responsible. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.

The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or
serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the
author thereof.

The claim that they had no participation does not shield them from liability. The provision in the RPC does not
provide absence of participation as a defense, but rather plainly and
specifically states the responsibility of those involved in publishing newspapers and other periodicals. It is not a
matter of whether or not they conspired in preparing and
publishing the subject articles, because the law simply so states that they are liable as they were the author.

Answer 2 Yes, A,B, and C may be liable for the crime of libel.

Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter priveleged under the provisions of Art. 354, if made with
malice, shall not exemot the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.

In the case at bar, there is a clear showing that the statements were made with malice considering the attacks made
by C on X. He even mentioned of the removal of X from his office being corrupt official although it is not yet been
proven or it is still considered as hearsay, meaning the statesment were still considered as mere allegations.
The remarks made by c were considered libelous.On the other hand, A being the publisher and B , the managing
editor of the newspaper consented the libelous remarks made by C.

Therefore A,B and C may all be liable for libel.

Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He pulled out a knife and threatened her with
harm unless she submitted to his desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when his wife caught him in the act. The
prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 ofthe RPC; for lascivious conduct
under RA 7610 (Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); or for rape under Art. 266-A
ofthe RPC. What is the crime committed? Explain. (5%)

Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses John and Joana. When Lina learned
that her 70-year old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the latter refused.
In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of the child with stockings, placed him in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and
placed the box in the attic. Lina then left the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ransom for
the release ofthe spouses’ child to be paid within twenty-four hours. The spouses did not pay the ransom. After a
couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the
child died o f asphyxiation barely minutes after the box was sealed.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain. (5%)

The question bear semblance to a case decided by the SC in 1982:

G.R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. BELINDA LORA Y VEQUIZO alias LORENA SUMILEW, accused-appellant

where the SC held:

The crime actually committed is not the complex crime of kidnapping


with murder, as found by the trial court, but the simple crime
of murder qualified by treachery.

Kidnapping is a crime against liberty defined in Article 267,


Title IX, Book 11 of the Revised Penal Code. The essence of kidnapping
or serious illegal detention is the actual confinement or restraint of the
victim or the deprivation of his liberty.

Where there is no showing that the accused intended to deprive


their victims of their liberty for some time and for some purpose, and
there being no appreciable interval between their being taken and
their being shot from which kidnapping may be inferred, the crimes
committed were murder and frustrated murder and not the complex
crimes of kidnapping with murder and kidnapping with frustrated murder.

In the instant case. the gagging of the child with stockings, placing him in
a box with head down and legs upward and covering the box with some
sacks and other boxes were only the methods of the defendant to commit
murder. The child instantly died of suffocation.

The demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder.
The defendant was well aware that the child would be suffocated to death in a
few moments after she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the diabolic
scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then
demand money before the discovery of the cadaver.

Fely cannot be held liable with Lina for the crime of murder
because the killing was already consummated.

There is treachery because the victim is only a 3-year old child.


The commission of the offense was attended with the aggravating
circumstances of lack of respect due to the age of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence.

The circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases where the
victim is of tender age as well as of old age. This circumstance was applied in a
case where one of the victims in a murder case was a 12-year-old boy.
In the instant case, the victim was only 3 years old. The gagging of the mouth of
a three-year-old child with stockings, dumping him with head downwards into a box,
and covering the box with sacks and other boxes, thereby causing slow suffocation, is cruelty.
There was also abuse of confidence because the victim was entrusted to the care of the appellant.
The appellant’s main duty in the household is to take care of the minor child. There existed a
relation of trust and confidence between the appellant and the one against whom the crime
was committed and the appellant made use of such relation to commit the crime.

When the killer of the child is the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the
deceased child’s amah the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence is present.

Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had two (2) children. The first few years of their
marriage went along smoothly. However, on the fifth year onwards, they would often quarrel when Romeo comes
home drunk. The quarrels became increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Julia would leave the conjugal
dwelling. During these times of quiet, Romeo would “court” Julia with flowers and chocolate and convince her to
return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or Romeo would ask Julia to forgive him, which she did,
believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo would change. After a month of marital bliss, Romeo would return to
his drinking habit and the quarrel would start again, verbally at first, until it would escalate to physical violence.

One night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of another violent fight, Julia
stabbed Romeo while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors discovered Romeo’s rotting corpse on the marital
bed. Julia and the children were nowhere to be found. Julia was charged with parricide. She asserted “battered
woman’s syndrome” as her defense

[a] Explain the “cycle of violence.” (2.5%)


[b] Is Julia’s “battered woman’s syndrome” defense meritorious? Explain. (2.5%)

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.

During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs —


it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.
The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind,
nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be
abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence
exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her placatory and passive
behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her in the first place.

However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate him are
not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner
senses the imminent loss of control and the growing tension and despair.
Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon withdraws emotionally.
But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the batterer becomes
angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence spirals
out of control and leads to an acute battering incident.

The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, destructiveness and,


sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase,
she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time
of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason
with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate her condition.

At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she may later clearly
remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer is
almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past painful experience that it is futile to fight
back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or
intervenors are likely to get hurt.

The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil period,
the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her
forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince
herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the better; and that this good, gentle
and caring man is the real person whom she loves.

[b] Is Julia’s “battered woman’s syndrome” defense meritorious? Explain.


(2.5%)

No. In PP vs Genova, the SC pronounced and laid out the following guidelines for
the battery woman’s syndrome to avail:
Under the 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 stabbed him.

Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

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.

This first element seems to be present in the instant case…there is more than one
occasion of quarrel.

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.

The second element seems to be absent. The victim was drunk and asleep when
stabbed to death.

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.

This obviously is lacking.

Reference:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant.
G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004

A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several years as a chief accountant, religiously sending to his wife, B, 80% of all
his earnings. After his stint abroad, he was shocked to know that B became the paramour of a married man, C, and
that all the monies he sent to B were given by her to C. To avenge his honor, A hired X, Y and Z and told them to
kidnap C and his wife, D, so that he can inflict injuries on C to make him suffer, and humiliate him in front of his
wife. X, Y and Z were paid P20,000.00 each and were promised a reward of P50,000.00 each once the job is done.

At midnight, A, with the fully armed X, Y and Z, forcibly opened the door and gained entrance to the house of C
and D. C put up a struggle before he was subdued by A’s group. They boarded C and D in a van and brought the
two to a small hut in a farmoutsideMetroManila. Both hands of Cand D were tied. With the help of X, Y and Z, A
raped D in front ofC. X, Y and Z then took turns in raping D, and subjected C to torture until he was black and
blue and bleeding profusely from several stab wounds. A and his group set the hut on fire before leaving, killing
both C and D. X, Y and Z were paid their reward. Bothered by his conscience, A surrendered the next day to the
police, admitting the crimes he committed.

As the RTC judge, decide what crime or crimes were committed by A, X, Y and Z, and what mitigating and
aggravating circumstances will be applied in imposing the penalty. Explain. (5%)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai