Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy HospitalG.R No. 130547 (October 3, 2000)A.

Legal IssueWhether or not Sisters of Mercy Hospital is liable for the death of
Jorge Reyes.B.

FactsPetitioner, Leah Alesna Reyes, is the wife of the deceased patient, Jorge
Reyes. Five days
before the latters
death, Jorge has been suffering from recurring fever with chills. The doctors
confirmed through the Widal test that Jorge has typhoid fever. However, he did
not respond tothe treatment and
died. The cause of his death was Ventric
ular Arrythemia Secondary to
Hyperpyrexia and typhoid fever.
Consequently, petitioner filed the instant case for damages before the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City, which dismissed the case and was affirmed by
theCourt of Appeals.The contention was that Jorge did not die of typhoid fever.
Instead, his death was due tothe wrongful administration of chloromycetin.
They contended that had respondent doctorsexercised due care and diligence,
they would not have recommended and rushed the performanceof the Widal
Test, hastily concluded that Jorge was suffering from typhoid fever, and
administered chloromycetin without first conducting sufficient tests on the
patients
compatibility with said drug.C.

RulingSisters of Mercy Hospital is not liable for the death of Jorge Reyes.D.

Reasoning of the CourtThere is no showing that the attending physician in this
case deviated from the usualcourse of treatment with respect to typhoid fever.
Jorge was given antibiotic choloromycetin andsome dose of triglobe after
compatibility test was made by the doctor and found that no adversereactions
manifested which would necessitate replacement of the medicines. Indeed, the
standardcontemplated is not what is actually the average merit among all
known practitioners from
the best to the worst and from the most to the least experienced, but the reaso
nable average meritamong the ordinarily good physicians. Here, the doctors did
not depart from the reasonablestandard recommended by the experts as they
in fact observed the due care required under thecircumstances.E.

PolicyIn Medical Negligence cases, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to
establish that the usual procedure in treating the illness is not followed by
the doctor. Failure to prove this, the doctor isnot liable. Physicians are not
insurers of the success of every procedure undertaken and
ifthe procedure was shown to be properly done but did not work, they cannot b
e faulted for suchresult.








G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSEPH LEONES y DUCUSIN alias JESSIE, defendant-appellant.

GUERRERO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of La Union,
Branch I, convicting the accused-appellant, Joseph Leones y Ducusin, of the
crime of rape charged in the following information, to wit:
The undersigned offended party after having been duly sworn to an
oath in accordance with law hereby accuses JOSEPH LEONES y
DUCUSIN alias Jessie of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
That on or about the 22nd day of April, 1973, in the Municipality
of San Fernando, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused Joseph Leones y
Ducusin alias Jessie, by means of violence and use of force
compelled the offended party to swallow tablets and consequently
thereafter while she fell into semi-consciousness the said accused
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the
complainant Irene Dulay against her will in the house of the
accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse
of confidence.
San Fernando, La Union, May 8,1973.
(SGD.) IRENE DULAY Offended Party
WITH MY CONFORMITY:
(SGD.) GAUDENCIO DULAY
(Father of the Offended Party)
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the
cost.
The facts are narrated in the People's brief as follows:
Complainant Irene Dulay was a salesgirl employed in the store of
Mr. & Mrs. Pepito Leones at San Fernando, La Union where she
resided.
On April 22, 1973, the complainant who had headache stayed in
her room. Earlier that day, the members of the Leones family,
including the accused-appellant Joseph Leones and his sister
Elizabeth, had gone to nearby beach resort for a picnic.
At about past noon the appellant and Elizabeth returned to their
house. While there, the appellant and Elizabeth entered the room
where complainant was lying down and forced her to take three
tablets dissolved in a spoon which according to them were aspirin.
The complainant refused to take the tablets but was forced to do so
when the appellant held her mouth while his sister pushed the
medicine. Then the appellant and Elizabeth left the room and after
a while the complainant felt dizzy.
Later, the appellant returned to the complainant's room and took
of her panty. Then the appellant went on top of her. The
complainant tried to push him but as she was weak and dizzy, the
appellant succeeded in abusing her (pp. 2-8,15-16, tsn, June 27,
1975).
At about 4:30 P.M. of the same date, Natividad Leones, the
stepmother of the appellant, found the complainant unconscious
near her room without any panty on. She was then taken to the La
Union Provincial Hospital by the driver of the Leones family (pp. 3-
5, tsn, June 10, 1976).
When admitted to the hospital at about 6:00 P.M. of the same date
(April 22, 1973), the complainant was semiconscious, incoherent
and hysterical. She refused to talk and to be examined by the
doctors. She was irritated when approached by a male figure
(Exhibit "B", Records, pp. 280-281). The complainant was first
attended to by Dr. Antonino Estioco who found out that she had
vaginal bleeding (Exhibit "2", Records, p. 786). The complainant
was then referred to Dr. Fe Cayao who was informed by Dr. Estioco
that she might have been a victim of rape (p. 28, tsn, May 15,
1974). In the presence of the complainant's father, Dr. Cayao
examined her on April 26, 1973 after which she issued a medical
certificate with the following findings:
1. Presence of erythema of the vestibular portion of external
genitalia;
2. Healing lacerations of the hymen at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock;
3. Easily admit one finger with pain;
4. Unclotted blood at the vaginal cavity;
5. Smear exam for sperm cell-negative;
6. D'plococci-negative
7. Florence test-reagent not available.
(Exhibit "A", Records, p. 3).
Because of the lack of facilities in the hospital, Dr. Cayao was not
able to make any examination to determine whether drug was
given to the complainant. (pp. 23- 24, tsn, May 15, 1974.
1

The accused-appellant denied the charge imputed to him, claiming that at the
time of the alleged rape between 2:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock p.m. on April 22,
1973, he was at the beach resort with the other members of the family, namely
his sister Elizabeth, his stepmother Natividad Leones, his younger brothers
and sisters named Marivic, Theresa, Carol, Pinky and Bongbong together with
other companions, for a picnic and had lunch thereat, swimming and picture-
taking.
As indicated earlier, the trial court, holding that "viewed from all legal aspects
of this case, in the light of the recorded evidence, ... is fully convinced that the
crime of rape charged in the criminal complaint was committed by the accused.
The evidence presented by the prosecution is not only clear and convincing but
has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
From this sentence, the accused appeals to Us, strongly submitting that the
trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crime charged since the evidence
presented against him did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
At the outset, We note a number of significant facts from the recorded evidence
of the prosecution which materially and substantially debunks and derails the
theory of the Government and correspondingly impresses considerable merit to
the defense.
1. The clinical case record of Irene Dulay's admission and confinement at the
Provincial Hospital of La Union, marked Exhibit "2", contain entries which
totally and completely belle the claim of the complainant that she was raped by
the accused in the afternoon of April 22, 1973. The same is reproduced
hereunder:
LA UNION PROVINCIAL HOSPITAL
San Fernando, La Union
CLINICAL CASE RECORD
Fis
cal
Yr.:
19
73
Physici
an:
Physici
an:

Ad
m.
No.
:
27
5
Admitt
ed by:
Dr.
Estioc
o
Fil
e
No.
or
Re
c.
No.
Approv
ed by:

Ped.: City
Free:
Surg.: Transi
ent
free:
Dept. Obs.:
Classif.
Govt.
free;
Med.: Prvt.
free:
EENT: Hosp.
pay:
C.U. Off.
Hosp.
pay:
Dental: Off.
Prvt.
pay:
Name of Patient: Irene Dulay
Maiden name: ____________________
Residence: San Fernando, La Union
In case of accident or death notify Natividad Leones, (employer)
Charge Hosp. Acct. to: _______________________________________
Age: 16 yrs. Single: Married; Widowed: Nationality Fil.
Admitted: 6:00 P.M. 4-22-1973 Assgd PR: I Bed by Dr. Estioco
Transf: P.M.____19____ to Dept: PR Ward #: ______ Bed # ______
Complaints: Vaginal bleeding
Diagnosis in full:
Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen.
R
e
s
u
lt
s:
Re
c.:
Disp
ositi
on:,
D
is
c
h
:

Im
prv
D
is

: d
:
Un
im
pro
v:
A
b
c
o
n
d
:
3
:
4
5

P
.
M
.
Die
d:
T
r
a
n
sf
H
o
s
p
.
5
-
1
2
-
7
3
Operation: _____________________________________
Anesthesia: _____________________________________
History written by: APPROVED:
(SGD.) ESTIOCO (unintelligible)
(Resident Physician) Dept. Head
The entry written in the above clinical record when Irene Dulay was admitted
under the item "Complaints" reads: Vaginal Bleeding, and below this entry
appears the Diagnosis-Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock
hymen. Assuming that the victim was raped between 2 and 3 o'clock p.m.,
April 22, 1973 (the same day she was admitted in the hospital), then the
lacerations of the hymen at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock would not have been
described and indicated to be Healing in the clinical case record. It would be
described as "laceration fresh" or by similar words like "bloody or new
lacerations." There is no instant formula, technique or process known to
medical science or by human experience to hasten the healing of a lacerated
hymen within three (3) hours or so after defloration.
Citing from the book, Legal Medicine by Pedro P. Solis, M.D., Ll B Medico Legal
Officer, National Bureau of Investigation, Department (now Ministry) of Justice,
We have the following comment on:
Healing time of laceration of the hymen:
Superficial laceration of the hymen may heal in two or three days.
More extensive tear may require longer time, usually seven to ten days.
Complicated types and those with intervening infection may cause delay in the
healing depending upon the extent of the involvement of the surrounding
tissue and the degree of infection. Complicated laceration may even require
surgical intervention." (p. 302, Emphasis supplied.)
Since there was found laceration, wide, at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock of the
hymen which was then already healing on April 22, 1973, it follows reasonably
that the defloration occurred several days before, which may have happened
when Irene Dulay took a week-long vacation to her hometown in Pugo, La
Union (tsn, p. 10, June 27, 1975) and there is evidence that she had a suitor
named Ferdinand Sarmiento who is from nearby Agoo, La Union. And when
she returned to the house of her employer in San Fernando, La Union, she had
already chest and stomach pains and a headache.
The written entries in the clinical case record, Exh. "2", showing the date of her
admission in the hospital on April 22, 1973, her complaint of vaginal bleeding
and the diagnosis of "Healing lacerated wide at 2 o'clock and 10 o'clock hymen"
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the said entries having
been made in official records by a public officer of the Philippines in the
performance of his duty especially enjoined by law, which is that of a physician
in a government hospital. (Rule 130, See. 38, Rules of Court). In the case at
bar, Dr. Antonino Estioco was the admitting physician but unfortunately, he
was not presented as a witness for the government.
In connection with Exhibit "2", there is one piece of damaging evidence which
not only derogates the theory of the prosecution but also cannot be explained
by the government, and that is the frank testimony of Dr. Fe Cayao herself,
thus:
Q The question is: did you not discover through
reading the clinical history of the patient that the
woman was not complaining of alleged rape?
A It was not indicated here that she was
complaining of an alleged rape.
Q There was not a single word in the clinical record
of the victim that she was the victim of an alleged rape,
is that correct?
A Yes. (tsn, pp. 27-28, May 15,1974)
2. From the same clinical case record, Exhibit "2", it appears clearly that the
alleged victim, Irene Dulay, was having her menstrual period when she was
supposedly raped for the Complaint indicated that she had vaginal bleeding.
She herself admitted in her testimony that on April 22, 1973, she was having
her menstruation. (tsn, p. 9, June 27, 1975).
It is quite abnormal and unnatural, almost unheard of in human experience
and behavior that a man would have sexual intercourse with a woman then
having her menstrual period, as was the admitted condition of the complainant
when she was allegedly abused by the accused. And because of this universal
abhorrence, taboo and distaste to have sexual contact with a menstruating
female and this is so however passionate and lustful the man way be unless he
is depraved or demented. We cannot believe that the accused-appellant, a
young fourth year college student of civil engineering studying in Baguio City,
would break or violate such a taboo by drugging the complainant girl with the
help of her sister and afterwards have sex relations with her in her menstrual
condition.
3. When the complainant was investigated by the police, she declared in her
affidavit, Exhibit "5", the following answers to these questions:
5. Q Why are you in this office?
A I came here with the purpose of giving my
voluntary statement in connection with the incident
that happened to me in the house of my employer and
I want to file a formal complaint against the persons
who offended me, sir.
6. Q Who are those persons who offended you, if
you know?
A They are Joseph alias Jessie and Elizabeth both
surnamed Leones, the son and daughter of Mr. Pepito
Leones, my employer.
7. Q When did that incident happened?
A At about between the hours of 2:00 & 3:00 in the
afternoon of April 22, 1973, sir.
8. Q What did these Joseph and Elizabeth do
against you?
A Because I was suffering headache at that time
because it was the first day of my menstrual period,
they were inviting me to go with them to Wallace and I
told them that I have a headache then later they forced
me to take in aspirin tablets, three (3) tablets then
after a few seconds, I begun to feel dizzy and
halfconscious.
9. Q Do you know if what you have forcely taken
and given by the two, Joseph and Elizabeth were really
aspirin tablets?
A I do not know, but they were white in color similar
to aspirin tablets but after I have taken them I felt
dizzy then unconscious.
10. Q In what manner did Joseph Leones and
Elizabeth Leones force you to take in the tablets?
A At about that time and date I mentioned above, I
was then lying on my bed in my room at their
residence, then Jessie and Elizabeth came in. Joseph
alias Jessie took hold of my throat with one hand and
pressed it hard that I was almost choked up, his other
hand held my both cheeks his thumb and forefinger
pressed hard to forcely. open my mouth while
Elizabeth held a spoon containing the three (3) tablets
then I was told by them to swallow the pills. I could
not resist so I swallowed the pills then later I felt dizzy
as if the world was turning around.
Thus, it would appear from the above recorded evidence that the accused
Joseph Leones and his sister Elizabeth, helped and conspired with each other
in the commission of the crime of rape against the offended party, an
assumption that is hardly believable for it would lead to the absurb
conclusions that Elizabeth was a principal by cooperation and that both
Joseph and Elizabeth had planned the rape for they conveniently provided
themselves beforehand with the necessary drug.
It further appears in the record that the Philippine Constabulary in La Union
did not believe the existence of rape when Felicidad Boado reported the
incident (tsn, p. 25, June 18, 1974), which disbelief may reasonably be
attributed to the unnatural and unusual version of the complainant that
another of her own sex had conspired and confabulated in the commission of
the alleged defilement.
4. The complainant, Irene Dulay, had declared in her affidavit, Exhibit " 5 ", in
answer to question No. 9 that after she had taken the tablets that were white in
color similar to aspirin tablets, she felt dizzy, then unconscious. In her
testimony at the trial, however, she testified that after she had taken the
tablets, she felt dizzy and felt the removal of her panty and that when he went
on top of her, he inserted his private parts into her private parts (tsn, pp. 6-7,
June 27, 1975), but on cross-exmination, she said that she became
unconscious when Joseph Leones was already on top of her (tsn, p. 22, June
27, 1975). If she became unconscious when Leones was on top of her and yet
she felt pain when he placed his private parts into hers, then this is incredible
for how could she have known what was done to her and how she felt when she
was already unconscious as admitted by her.
5. The record is replete with testimonies of the very witnesses of the
prosecution itself revealing the irrational, if not immoral behavior and conduct
of the complainant which cuts deep into the morality, character and credibility
of the complaining witness. To cite a few of her immoral acts, when the police
came to visit her, Irene Dulay took hold of the penis, of the policeman
(Testimony of Felicidad Boado, tsn, p. 20, June 18, 1974). Whenever she sees a
man, she goes after him and takes hold of his hand and places it in her private
part (Testimony of Leonida Dulay, p. 5, tsn, Sept. 20, 1974). Sometimes she is
seated, sometimes she is standing and there are moments that she goes
around and whenever she sees a man, she calls for him and says "darling
Jessie" (Cross-examination of Leonida Dulay, tsn, p. 14, Sept. 20, 1974). She
even said "have sexual intercourse with me," making particular mention of the
person who wanted to do that to her as Joseph Leones (Cross-examination of
Leonida Dulay, tsn, pp. 27-28, Sept. 20, 1974). There are times when she gets
a pillow and imitates the sexual act (tsn, p. 29, Sept. 20, 1974). There are
moments when she takes hold of a pillow, embraces it, and makes movements
imitating the sexual act (tsn, Testimony of Leonida Dulay, p. 5, Sept. 20, 1974).
6. The circumstances of persons, time and place attendant in the commission
of the crime do not build up the case for the People. On the contrary, We find
facts and circumstances which contradict and contravene the theory of the
prosecution, rendering it highly improbable and questionable. Thus, the room
of the complainant where the alleged rape was committed was at the ground
floor of the house where her employer lives with his family and maintains a
canteen at the premises, the room being very near the washing place and had a
door with only wooden jalousies. There were several persons present in the
house at the time of the alleged rape and they were Evelyn Estigoy, the
secretary of Natividad Leones, the cook Inocencia Gangad and her daughter,
Mantes. With the presence of these persons at the premises and the
complainant's room was not secluded nor completely closed, the opportunity to
commit the rape is hardly present. More than that the alleged time being
between 2:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon and with the supposed
attendance of the perpetrator's elder sister, Elizabeth the element of secrecy
had been totally ignored or disregarded which is quite unbelievable and
incredible in such a crime as rape.
Indeed, rape is a most detestable crime. It should be severely and impartially
punished. But a rape charge is easy to make, hard to prove and harder to
defend by the party accused, though innocent. Experience has shown that
unfounded charges of rape have frequently been preferred by women actuated
of rape have frequently been preferred by women actuated by some sinister,
ulterior or undisclosed motive. Convictions for such crime should not be
sustained without clear and convincing proof of guilt. On more than one
occasion, it has been pointed out that in crimes against chastity, the testimony
of the injured woman should not be received with precipitate credulity. When
the conviction depends on any vital point upon her uncorroborated testimony,
it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from
suspicion. A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in judging
matters of this kind. (Cornelio Flores, 26 Phil. 262, 268; Ignacio Landicho, 8
ACR 580; Rafael Lacson, CA 53 O.G. 1823; Francisco Salvador, CA 52 O.G.
7290; Lago, CA 45 O.G. 1356; Barbo, 56 SCRA 459; Bay, 27 Phil. 495;
Pantaleon Ramos, 35 Phil. 671; Brocal, CA 36 O.G. 857; Topacio, CA 36 O.G.
1358; Fernando Fausto, 51 Phil. 852; cited in Aquino, The Revised Penal Code,
1977 Ed., Vol. III, pp. 1679-1680).
After carefully analyzing and weighing the evidence presented by the
prosecution in the light of the legal principles above outlined and now well-
established in Our jurisprudence and guided by a little insight into human
nature, We are persuaded and convinced that the guilt of the accused has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. That moral certainty or degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind (Rule 133, Section 2,
Rules of Court) has not been established by the prosecution. The constitutional
mandate that the accused is presumed innocent must prevail and, therefore,
the accused-appellant, Joseph Leones, is entitled to an acquittal.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the judgment of conviction
is hereby REVERSED and the accused Joseph Leones y Ducusin is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.




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 were 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 the battered woman
syndrome as constituting self 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.