People v. Genosa (Battered Woman Syndrome R.A.
9262) o Marivic stabbed Ben with table knife through left arm
Version of Prosecution:
o Marivic and ben Genosa were married, lived with ben’s parents
in Leyte, but then rented from Steban Matiga a house in Leyte
where they lived with 2 children, John and Earl.
o Ben and Arturo went to cockfight when they received their
salary, had 2 bots of beers. Marivic went to look for Ben. Arturo
heard Marivic say “I won’t hesitate to kill you” and that was the
last time Arturo saw ben alive, saw that the house was
uninhabited and always closed.
o Valida (witness) waiting for bus going to Ormoc saw Marivic
going out of house with kids.
o Neighbors of Matiga told Steban of a foul odor from the house,
and when Steban destroyed padlock to get in, he saw the lifeless
body of Ben lying on his side of the bed covered with blanket.
There was blood on Ben’s nape and only had his briefs. There
was a metal pipe near him.
o Marivic admitted to killing Ben. She said that she looked for Ben
when he wasn’t home, and then found Ben drunk in the Genosas’
house.
o Ben nagged Marivic for following him and he switched off the
light holding a chopping knife when she ignored his comment.
He cut the TV wire as well. Ben was about to attack her so she
ran to children’s bedroom, but he got a hold of her. She was able
to smah the arm of Ben with a pipe and then smashed Ben at his
nape.
Defense Version
o Alex, Ben’s brother, testified that Ben would generally come
home drunk, and Marivic would inflict injuries on him. He saw
Marivic holding kitchen knife, and on another occasion, an
empty bottle.
o Mrs. Genosa (mother) testified that when they got married,
Marivic became demanding. There were three
misudnerstandings:
o Marivic struck Ben’s forehead using sharp instrument
o Ben’s hand was plastered as the bone cracked
o Marivic testified that after 1st year of marriage, Ben became cruel
to her and was a habitural drinker. Would prove, slap, and pin
her down to beat her. These incidents happened so many times
but he would just follow her and beg for her forgiveness.
o Witnesses not so close to Marivic also testified
o Two fishermen who were brothers witnessed the couple
grappling with each other, Ben holding Marivic in a
choke hold
o Sarabia (former neighbor) said that they’d always
quarrel, Ben would pawn items to use money for
gambling, and would box his wife.
o Arano, 18 year old cousin of Marivic, testified that
Marivic wanted Arano to sleep with her in the Genosa
house because she was afraid that she might be battered
by Ben.
o Dr. Caing was a physician who attended to Marivic, and
that Marivic was his patient many times and that there
were 6 episodes of physical injuries
o Marivic testified that she was scared that Ben would hurt
her, and that during their marriage, she tried to leave 5
times but Ben followed her and would always want to
reconcile.
o Information charged Marivic with PARRICIDE, with intent to
kill, treachery and evident premeditation
Dr Dayan’s Testimony
o Battered women – low opinion of herself, self-defeating, self-
sacrificing, they think they provoked the violence, they usually
comefrom broken or dysfunctional homes
o Reasons why battered women don’t leave their husbands:
poverty, self-blame, and guitl that she provoked the
violence/cycle
o Said that Marivic fit the profile of a battered woman
 o And at the time of the killing, Marivic thought herself the victim
Dr. Pajarillo also testified:
o At the time she killed her husband, Marivic’s mental condition
was that she was ‘re-experiencing trauma’. Re-experiencing
trauma isn’t controlled by marivic. It’ll just come in flashes.
o RTC found Marivic guilty BRD, theory of self-defense
untenable. They appreciated GAC – Ben was defenseless since
he was lying in bed asleep when Marivic smashed him with a
pipe at the back of his head.
o Marivic’s counsel filed URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION praying
for re-examination of cause of death and allow Marivic to be
examined by qualified psychologists to determine her state of
mind the time she killed her husband. This was granted by the
Court. Trial judge authorized examination of marivic by two
clinical experts, Drs. Dayan and Pajarillo. (see above).
ISSUE: Whether or not Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of
her unborn child?
RULING: No.
o There’s a cycle that a battered woman goes through. There’s the
tension-building phase, the acute battering incident, and the
tranquil or non-violent phase.
o Tension building phase is when there’s slight verbal/physical
abuse, and woman tries to pacify batterer through a docile
manner, however this just reinforces the batterer’s belief that he
has the right to abuse her in the first place.
o Acute battering incident is the sudden and heavy abuse upon the
victim.
o The tranquil period is when the batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior towards his partner, and battered woman tries
to convince herself that the battery will never happen again.
o A battered woman believes that she’s the sole anchor of the
emotional stability of the batterer.
o Marivic herself has testified that:
o Cruel to her and habitual drinker
o Provoke her in everything and would slap her and pin
her down
o He would beat her and would be cruel to her at least
three times a week when he was drunk
HOWEVER:
o Defense fell short in proving all three phases of cycle of violence
(tension building and tranquil wala). There’s the tension building
phase.
o However, that single incident doesn’t prove the existence of the
syndrome (has to be at least two incidents of the cycle).
o She failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in
the past, she had gone through a similar pattern.
o Didn’t ask these Qs: How did the tension between aprtners
usually arise? How did Marivic normally respond to Ben’s
relatively minor abuses?
o Defense also didn’t provide sufficient evidence for the tranquil
phase. Simply mentioned that she’d usually run away, and Ben
would seek her out, ask for forgiveness, and promise to change.
o Did she ever feel that she provoked violent incidents
between her and her spouse?
o How dependent was she on. Him? Did she feel helpless
in and trapped in the relationship?
o Defense failed to elicit from defendant Marivic herself her
factual experiences and thoughts that would clearly and fully
demonstrate essential characteristics of the syndrome.
BWS as a defense
o Crucial to BWS defense is statement of mind of battered woman
at the time of offense – she must have actually feared imminent
har, from her batterer and honestly believed in imminent and
actual, not merely imaginary.
 o Justifying circumstaneces – unlawful aggression, reasonable
necessity of m eans employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of
sufficient provicatio on part of person defending himself.
o There was no unlawful aggression. According to Marivic, there
was a sufficient time interval between unlawful aggression of
ben and her fatal attack on him. She had already been able to
witdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their children’s
bedroom. During that time he ceased his attack and went to bed.
Mitigating Circumstances
o Court finds in favor of Marivic the extenuating circumstance of
having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally
produced passion and obfuscation.
o There was an attempt not only her life, but also on her unborn
child. Even though she was able to retreat, her emotional and
mental state continued,
Proper penalty
o Since penalty for parricide is rec perp to death, and since there
are two mitigating circumstances (psychological paralysis that
arose from the cyclical nature of violence as well as passion and
obfuscation) and no aggravating, it should be PriMaMi to
RecTempMed (6 to 14 years).
Ang v. CA
FACTS:
Information was charged accusing Rustan Ang for violating VAWC by
sending a pornographic picture using his phone to Irish Sagud, his former
girlfriend, whereby the face of the latter was attached to a complete
naked body of another woman, making it appear that it was Irish Sagud
in the obscene photo, causing substantial emotional anguish,
psychological distress and humiliation.
Irish and Rustan were on and off sweethearts as well as classmates in
Wesleyan University in Aurora Province. When Irish learned that Rustan
had a live in partner who was pregnant, she broke up with him. Before.
Rustan got married, tried to convince irish to elope with him. She
rejected. Irish changed her phone number, Rustan still had it with him,
and sent her text messages. Used two phone numbers.
On June 5, 2005, she received the PICTURE from one of Rustan’s
number with a message saying that it would be easy to spread this on the
internet. So Irish contacted the vice mayor who referred her to the police.
Irish then texted Rustan (the same number which sent her the obscene
pic) to meet her in Lorentess. Resort in Maria Aurora, and that’s where
police officers arrested him and confiscated his Sony Ericsson P900.
Gonzales, expert in IT said it was possible to change the picture and
showed h ow to do it.
Rustan’s defense
o He went to Lorentesss Resort so that he can help irish figure out
who was sending her malicious text messages
o He claims that he got the obscene messages from the prankster,
and Rustan forwarded it to irish, that’s why it came from his
phone,
RTC found Irish testimony credible and ruled in her favor.
ISSUE: Whether or not they had a dating relationship (so that he would
qualify under VAWC) and whether or not a single act of harassment
constitutes a violation of Sec. 5(h) of RA 9262.
RULING:
1. Yes they did
2. Yes, single act suffices.
First Issue
o Sec. 3e provides that dating relationship includes a situation
where parties are romantically involved over time on a
continuing asis during course of relationship.
 o Rustan claims “romantically involved” meant sexual relations.
That it’s a verb. To romance her.
o Law used it as a noun to describe a couple’s relationship. And
also, Sec. 3(f) defines a sexual relationship, therefore dating and
sexual relationships are different.
2nd Issue
o Violence against women refers to any ACT or series of acts
committed by any person against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual/dating relationship (Sec. 3).
o Also, the two of them were romantically involved from Oct to
Dec. 2003, that’s enough time for nurturing a relationship of
mutual trust and love.
o Also, Sec. 3(a) just says any ACT or series of act, so a single act
of harassment is enough.
Socorro v Van Wilsem (refused to give support since he’s a foreign
national)
FACTS:
Norma Del Soccoro and Ernst Van Wilsem married in Holland, and they
were blessed with a son named Roderigo Van Wilsem. The marriage by
virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by Holland Court, and their son was 18
months old. According to Socorro, Van Wilsem made a promise to
provide monthly support to P17,500. However, Van Wilsem never gave
support.
Van Wilsem remarried in Cebu, and he and his new wife established
Paree Catering. All live in Cebu. So Socorro sent a demand letter for
support, but Van Wilsem didn’t want to receive the letter. Socorro filed a
complaint-affidavit with Prov Prosec of Cebu City against Van Wilsem
for violation of Sec. 5e(2) for latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor
child with Socorro.
An information was filed with the RTC that Roderigo Van Wilsem
unlawfully and deliberately deprive financial support legally due him,
resulting in economic abuse to the victim. RTC dismissed the instant
criminal case. Socorro filed her MR, Van Wilsem’s obligation to support
their child under Art. 195 of FC, and failure to make him liable under RA
9262, which equally applies to all persons in the PH who are obliged to
support their minor children regardless of obligor’s nationality.
ISSUE: Whether or not foreign national has an obligation to support his
minor child under PH law.
Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under RA
9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.
RULING:
Socorro invoked Art. 195 of FC which provides parent’s obligation to
support his child.
Van Wilsem says that there’s no sufficient and clear basis presented by
Socorro that she and her son are entitled to financial support. By reason
of Divorce Decree, he isn’t obligated to Socorro for any financial
support.
Court:
Agrees that Socorro can’t rely on Art. 195 demanding support from Van
Wilsem, who’s a foreign citizen since Art. 15 of CC stresses principle of
nationality. However, in international law the part who wants to have a
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has burden of proving the foreign
law. In this case, Van Wilsem concludes that being a Netherlands
national, he’s governed by such laws. In view of Van Wilsem’s failure to
prove national law, doctrine of processual presumption shall govern
which says that foreign law involved isn’t proper leaded and proved, our
courts will presume that foreign law is the same as our local or domestic
or internal law.
We likewise agree with Socorrro that despite national law of Van
Wilsem which states that parents have no obligation to support their
children or that such obligation isn’t punishable by law, said law would
still not find applicability due to Bank of America, NT and SA v.
American Realty Corporation.  When a foreign law, judgement or
contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum,
the said foreign law, judgement or order shall not be applied. Moreover,
foreign law shouldn’t be applied when its application would work
undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.
Even if laws of Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to
support his child nor penalize non-compliance therewith, such obligation
is still duly enforceable in the PH because it would be of great injustice
to the child to be denied of financial support when latter is entitled to.
Dabalos v. RTC
FACTS:
Karlo Dabalos was charged with violation of Sec. 5(a) of RA 9262
before RTC of Angeles City for using personal violence on complainant
by pulling her hair, punching complainant’s back, shoulder and left eye,
thereby demeaning and degrading complainant’s intrinsic worth and
dignity as human being, in violation of Sec. 5(a) of RA 9262.
RTC found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Private
respondent admitted that her relationship with Dabalos had ended prior
to subject incident. She sought payment of money she had lent to
Dabalos but Dabalos couldn’t pay. She then inquired from Dabalos if he
was responsible for spreading rumors about her which he admitted.
Respondent slapped Karlo Dabalos.
RTC denied Dabalos’ motion, didn’t consider the fact of parties’ dating
relationship had ceased prior to incident, since parties had admitted a
prior dating relationship, the infliction of slight physical injuries
constituted an act of violence against women defined in Sec. 3(a) of RA
9262.
ISSUE: Whether. RA 9262 should be construed in manner that’ll favor
accused
RULING:
Dabalos insists that the act which resulted in physical injuries to private
respondent isn’t covered by RA 9262. He claims that offense was
committed was only slight physical injuries. Court isn’t persuaded.
2 limiting qualifications for any act or series of acts to be considered as a
crime of violence against women through physical harm:
1. It’s committed against a woman or her child and woman is
offender’s wife, former wife, or with whom he has or had
sexual/dating relationship or with whom he has a common child
2. It results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering
In Ang v. CA, elements of crime of VAW through harassment:
1. Offender has or had sexual/dating relationship
2. Offender commits an act or series of acts of harassment against
the woman
3. Harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to her
While it’s required that offender has or had sexual/dating relationship
with offended woman, for RA 9262 to be applicable, it’s not
indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such
relationship. The punishable acts refer to all acts o f violence against
women with whom the offender has or had a sexual/dating relationship.
It’s immaterial whether relationship had ceased for as long as there’s
sufficient evidence showing past/present existence of such relationship
between offender and victim when physical harm was committed.