76 Phil.

174 him to elope with her and that if he should not marry her, she would take poison; and that Avelina
again received information of Amado's bragging at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day.

DE JOYA,J.: At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day, September 20, 1942, Nicolas Jaurigue went to the
chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists of which he was the treasurer, In their barrio, just across the
Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, for provincial road from his house, to attend religious services, and sat on the front bench facing the altar
the crime of murder, of which Nicolas Jaurigue was acquitted, but defendant Avelina Jaurigue was with the other officials of the oranization and the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada. Inside the chapel
found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an Indeterminate penalty ranging from seven years, four it was quite bright as there were electric lights.
months and one day of prision mayor to thirteen years, nine months and eleven days of recluslon
temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father,
Amado Capiña, in the sum of P2,000, and to pay one-half of the costs. She was also credited with also for the purpose of attending religious services, and sat on the bench next to the last one nearest
one-half of the period of preventive imprisonment suffered by her. the door. Amado Capiña was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon observing the presence of
From said judgment of eonvietion, defendant Avelina Jaurigue appealed to the Court of Appeals for Avelina Jaurigue, Amado Capiña went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right
Southern Luzon, and in her brief filed therein on June 10, 1944, claimed - side, and, without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the
upper part cf her right thigh. On observing this highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado
"(1)That the lower court erred in not holding that said appellant had acted in the legitimate defense of Capiña, Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out with her right hand
her honor and that she should be completely absolved of all criminal responsibility; the fan knife marked Exhibit B, which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing
Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina1s right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife with
"(2) That the lower court erred in not finding in her favor the additional mitigating circumstances that her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, inflicting upon him a
(a) she did not have the intention to commit so grave a wrong as that actually committed, and that wound about (4½ inches deep, which was necessarily mortal. Nicolas Jaurlgue, who was seated on
(b) she voluntarily surrendered to the agents of the authorities; and one of the front benches, saw Amado bleeding and staggering towards the altar, and upon seeing his
daughter still holding the bloody knife, he approached her and asked; "Why did you do that", and
"(3) That the trial court erred in holding that the commission of the alleged offense was attended by answering him, Avelina said: "Father, I could not endure anymore." Amado Capiña died from the
the aggravating oircumstance of having been committed in a sacred place." wound a few minutes later. Barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada, who was also in the same chapel,
approached Avelina and asked her why she did that, and Avelina surrendered herselft saying; "Kayo
The evidence adduced by the parties, at the trial in the court below, has sufficiently established the na po ang bahala sa aquin," meanings "I hope you will take care of me," or more correctly, "I place
following facts: myself at your disposal." Fearing that Amado's relatives might retaliate, barrio lieutenant Lozada
advised Nicolas Jaurigue and herein defendant and appellant to go home immediately, to close their
That both the defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Capiña lived in the doors and windows and not to admit anybody Into the house, unless accompanied by him. That father
barrio of Sta. Isabel, city of San Pablo, province of Laguna; that for sometime prior to the stabbing of and daughter went home and locked themselves up, following instructions of the barrio lieutenant,
the deceased by defendant and appellant, in the evening of September 20, 1942, the former had and waited for the arrival of the municipal authorities; and when three policemen arrived in their
been courting the latter in vain, and that on one occasion, about one month before that fatal night, house, at about 10 o'clock that night, and questioned them about the incident, defendant-appellant
Amado Capiña snatched a handkerchief belonging to her, bearing her nickname "Aveling", while It immediately surrendered the knife marked as Exhibit B, and informed said policemen briefly of what
was being washed by her cousin, Josefa Tapay. had actually happened in the chapel and of the previous acts and conduct of the deceased, as already
stated above, and went with said policemen to the police headquarters, where her written statements
On September 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a dog under her house, Amado approached her were taken, and which were presented as a part of the evidence for the prosecution.
and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he thereupon suddenly embraced and
kissed her and touched her breasts, on account of which Avelina, a resolute and quick-tempered girl, The high conception, of womanhood that our people possess, however humble they may be, is
slapped Amado, gave him fist blows and kicked him. She kept the matter to herself, until the universal. It has been entertained and has existed in all civilized communities.
following morning when she informed her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with a long
fan knife, whenever she went out, evidently for self-protection. A beautiful woman is said to be a jewel; a good woman, a treasure; and that a virtuous woman
represents the only true nobility. And they are the future wives and mothers of the land* Such are
On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed up the house of defendant-appellant, and the reasons why, in the defense of their honor, when brutally attacked, women are permitted to make
surreptitiously ntered the room where she was sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the use of all reasonable means available within their reach, under the circumstances. Criminologists and
intention of abusing her. She immediately screamed for help, which awakened her parents and courts of justice have entertained and upheld this view.
brought them to her side. Amado came out from where he had hidden under a bed in Avelina's room
and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, asking for forgiveness; and when Avelina's On the other hand, it is the duty of every man to protect and show loyalty to womanhood, as in the
mother made an attempt to beat Amado, her husband prevented her from doing so, stating that days of chivalry. There is a country where women freely go out unescorted and, like the beautiful
Amado probably did not realize what he was doing, Nicolas Jaurigue sent for the barrio lieutenant, roses in their public gardens, they always receive the protection of all. That country is Switzerland.
Casimiro Lozada, and for Amadots parents, the following morning. Amado1a parents came to the
house of Nicolas Jaurigue and apologized for the misconduct of their son; and as Nicolas Jaurigue was In the language of Viada, aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our own
then angry, he told them to end the conversation, as he might not be able to control himself. person, we have the right to property acquired by us, and the right to honor which is not the least
prized of our patrimony (1 Viada, Codigo Penal, 5th ed, pp. 172, 173).
In the morning of September 20, 1942, Avelina received information that Amado had been falsely
boasting in the neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person and that she had even asked
The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful aggression sufficient to put her in a state of grave offense committed against her a few moments before, and upon such provocation as to produce
legitimate defense, inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but be esteemed as a right as precious, if passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of reason and self-control, should be considered as
not more, than her very existence; and it is evident that a woman whor thus imperiled, wounds, nay mitigating circumstances in her favor (People vs. Parana,, 64 Phil., 331; People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil.,
kills the offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal liability, since such killing cannot be 27; United States vs. Arribas, 1 Phil., 86).
considered a crime from the moment it became the only means left for her to protect her honor from
so great an outrage (1 Viada, Codigo Penal, 5th ed., p. 301; People vs. Luague and Alcansare, 62 Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not intended to kill the deceased but merely
Phil., 504). wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife, as shown by the fact that she inflicted upon him
only one single wound. And this is another mitigating circumstance which should be considered in her
As long as there is actual danger of being raped, a woman is justified in killing her aggressor, in the favor (United States vs. Brobst, 14 Phil., 310; United States vs. Diaz, 15 Phil., 123).
defense of her honor. Thus, where the deceased grabbed the defendant in a dart night at about 9
o'clock, in an isolated barrio trail, holding her firmly from behind, without warning and without The claim of the prosecution, sustained by the learned trial court, that the offense was committed by
revealing hie identity, and, in the struggle that followed, touched her private parts, and that she was the defendant and appellant, with the aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place
unable to free herself by means of her strength alone, she was considered justified in making use of a dedicated to religious worship cannot be legally sustained; as there is no evidence to show that the
pocket knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor, and which ended in his defendant and appellant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night.
death, since she had no other means of defending herself, and consequently exempt from all criminal Avelina is not a criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the greatest provocation. She is a
liability (People vs. De la Cruz, 61 Phil., 344). God-fearing young woman, typical of our country girls, who still possess the consolation of religious
hope in a world where so many others have hopelessly lost the faith of their elders and now drifting
And a woman, in defense of her honor, was perfectly justified in inflicting wounds on her assailant away they know not where.
with a bolo which she happened to be carrying at the time, even though her cry for assistance might
have been heard by people nearby, when the deceased tried to assault her in a dark and isolated The questions raised in the second and third assignments of error appear, therefore, to be well taken;
place, while she was going from her house to a certain tienda, for the purpose of making purchases and so is the first assignment of error to a certain degree.
(United States vs.Santa Ana and Ramos, 22 Phil., 249).
In the mind of the court, there is not the least doubt that, in stabbing to death the deceased Amado
In the case, however, in which a sleeping woman was awakened at night by someone touching her Capiña, in the manner and form and under the circumstances above indicated, the defendant and
arm, and, believing that some person was attempting to abuse her, she asked who the intruder was appellant committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at
and receiving no reply, attacked and killed the said person with a pocket knife, it was held that, least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor; and, in
notwithstanding the woman's belief in the supposed attempt, it was not sufficient provocation or accordance with the provisions of article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, she is entitled to a reduction
aggression to justify her completely In using a deadly weapon. Although she actually believed it to be by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her. And considering the circumstances of
the beginning of an attempt against her, she was not completely warranted in making such a deadly the instant case, the defendant and appellant should be accorded the most liberal consideration
assault, as the injured person, who turned out to be her own brother-in-law returning home with hia possible under the law (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil. 391; United States vs. Rivera, 41 Phil., 472;
wife, did not do any other act which could be considered as an attempt against her honor (United People vs. Mercado, 43 Phil., 950).
States vs. Apego, 23 Phil., 391).
The law prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for the crime of homicide; and if it should be
In the instant case, if defendant and appellant had killed Amado Capiña, when the latter climbed up reduced by two degrees, the penalty to be imposed in the instant case is that of prision correcclonal;
her house late at night on September 15, 1942, and surreptitiously entered her bedroom, and pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 4103 of the Philippine Legislature, known as the
undoubtedly for the purpose of raping her, as indicated by his previous acts and conduct, instead of Indeterminate Sentence Law, herein defendant and appellant should be sentenced to an
merely shouting for help, she would have been perfeotly justified in killing him, as shown by the Indeterminate penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its medium degree, to prision correccional in its
authorities cited above. medium degree. Consequently, with the modification of the judgment appealed from, defendant and
appellant Avelina Jaurigue is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months
According to the facts established by the evidence and found by the learned trial oourt in this case, and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prislon
when the deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on the same bench, near the door of correccionalt, as maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of
the barrio chapel and placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh, without her consent, the the deceased Amado Capiña, in the sum of P2,000. pesos, and to suffer the corresponding subsidiary
said chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were already several people, about ten of them, imprisonment, not to exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty, in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
inside the chapel, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant and other dignitaries of the Defendant and appellant should also be given the benefit of ½ of her preventive imprisonment, and
organization; and under the circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility of her being the knife marked Exhibit B ordered confiscated. So ordered.
raped. And when she gave Amado Capiña a thrust at the base of the left side of his neofc, inflicting
upon him a mortal wound 4½ inches deep, causing his death a few moments later, the means Ozaete, Perfecto, and Bengzon, JJ., concur
employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under the facts and
circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally declared completely exempt from criminal liability.

But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally
surrendered to the Barrio lieutenant in said chapel, admitting having stabbed the deceased,
immediately after the incident, and agreed to go to her house shortly thereafter and to remain there
subject to the order of the said barrio. lieutenant, an agent of the authorities (United States, vs.
Fortaleza, 12 Phil., 472); and the further fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a
CASE DIGEST surrender and passion and obfuscation (read p. 405 explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts) not
murder because treachery is not applicable on account of provocation by the deceased. Also, assault
was not deliberately chosen with view to kill since slayer acted instantaneously. There was also no
direct evidence of planning or preparation to kill. Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is reclusion
People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389 (1983) temporal. However, due to mitigating circumstances and incomplete defense, it can be lowered three
FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer degrees (Art. 64) to arrestomayor.
and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during
the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house 3. WON he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to pay the civil indemnity
and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and due to the offended party.
found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house and
asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go No. He is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned for nonpayment of civil indemnity. RA 5465 made
ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who the provisions of Art. 39 applicable to fines only and not to reparation of damage caused,
was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the indemnification of consequential damages and costs of proceedings. Although it was enacted only
shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle with the after its conviction, considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC.
of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to
Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/ mitigating circumstances and extenuating
property from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25, circumstance of incomplete self defense. Penalty is 4 months arresto mayor and to indemnify
defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. each group of heirs 4,000 w/o subsidiary imprisonment and w/o award for moral damages. Appellant
He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter. has already been detained 14 years so his immediate release is ordered.
Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. CFI ruled that
Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating Gutierrez, dissenting. Defense of property can only be invoked when coupled with form of attack on
circumstance of voluntary surrender. For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to person defending property. In the case at bar, this was not so. Appellant should then be sentenced to
indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages. prision mayor. However, since he has served more than that, he should be released.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not CFI erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the fact that he acted in
defense of his person.

No. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of the house of the defendant
was indeed a form of aggression on the part of the victim. However, this
aggression was not done on the person of the victim but rather on his rights to property. On the first
issue, the courts did not err. However, in consideration of the violation of property rights, the courts
referred to Art. 30 of the civil code recognizing the right of owners to close and fence their land.

Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in the position to subscribe to the article because his
ownership of the land being awarded by the government was still pending, therefore putting
ownership into question. It is accepted that the victim was the original aggressor.

2. WON the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant although he acted in defence of his rights.

Yes. However, the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3
requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites:
 Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards appellant's
property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace before
time was up, instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up fence. Art. 536 of the Civil Code also
provides that possession may not be acquired through force or intimidation; while Art. 539 provides
that every possessor has the right to be respected in his possession
 Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. In the case, killing was
disproportionate to the attack.
 Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Here, there was no
provocation at all since he was asleep
Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited with the special mitigating circumstance of
incomplete defense, pursuant to Art. 13(6) RPC. These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary
206 Phil. 314 Shortly thereafter, Fleischer and Company, headed by George W. Fleischer, an American landowner in
Negros Oriental, filed sales application No. 21983 on June 3, 1937 over the same area formerly
leased and later abandoned by Celebes Plantation Company, covering 1,017.2234 hectares.
MAKASIAR, J.:
Meanwhile, the subdivision was ordered and a public land surveyor did the actual survey in 1941 but
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, in the survey report was not submitted until 1946 because of the outbreak of the second world war.
Criminal Cases Nos. 1815 and 1816 for murder which, after a joint trial, resulted in the conviction of According to the survey, only 300 hectares identified as Lots Nos. 22, 26 and 38, Ps. 176 Kiamba,
the accused in a decision rendered on September 8, 1970, with the following pronouncement: were set aside for Sales Application No. 21983, while the rest were subdivided into sublots of 5 to 6
"Thus, we have a crime of MURDER qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of hectares each to be distributed among the settlers (pp. 32-33, G.R. No. L-45504).
evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The proper
penalty imposable, therefore, is RECLUSION PERPETUA (Arts. 248 and 64, Revised Penal Code). The 300 hectares set aside for the sales application of Fleischer and Company was declared open for
disposition, appraised and advertised for public auction. At the public auction held in Manila on August
"Accordingly, finding Mamerto Narvaez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, 14, 1948, Fleischer and Company was the only bidder for P6,000.00. But because of protests from the
settlers the corresponding award in its favor was held in abeyance, while an investigator was sent by
"(a) In Criminal Case No. 1815, he is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the the Director of Lands to Kiamba in the person of Atty. Jose T. Gozon. Atty. Gozon came back after ten
heirs of the deceased Davis Q. Fleischer in the sum of P12,000.00 as compensatory damages, days with an amicable settlement signed by the representative of the settlers. This amicable
P10,000.00 as moral damages, P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, the offended party having been settlement was later repudiated by the settlers, but the Director of Lands, acting upon the report of
represented by a private prosecutor, and to pay the costs; Atty. Gozon, approved the same and ordered the formal award of the land in question to Fleischer
and Company. The settlers appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who,
"(b) In Criminal Case No. 1816, he is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the however, affirmed the decision in favor of the company.
heirs of the deceased Flaviano Rubia in the sum of P12,000.00 as compensatory damages,
P10,000.00 as moral damages, P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, the offended party having been On May 29, 1950, the settlers filed Civil Case No. 240 in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato which
represented by a private prosecutor, and to pay the costs" (p. 48, rec.). then consisted only of one sala, for the purpose of annulling the order of the Secretary of Agriculture
The facts are summarized in the People's brief, as follows: and Natural Resources which affirmed the order of the Director of Lands awarding the contested land
to the company. The settlers, as plaintiffs, lost that case in view of the amicable settlement which
"At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibañez, they had repudiated as resulting from threats and intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation and
together with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of George fraudulent machination on the part of the company. They appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R.
Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. The place was in the boundary of the highway and the No. 28858-R) which likewise affirmed on August 16, 1965 the decision of the Court of First Instance
hacienda owned by George Fleischer. This is located in the municipality of Maitum, South Cotabato. At in favor of the company.
the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant Mamerto Narvaez (pp. 179-182, t.s.n.,
Pieza II). At that time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard that the walls of his house This resulted in the ouster of the settlers by an order of the Court of First Instance dated September
were being chiselled, he arose and there he saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on, 24, 1966, from the land which they had been occupying for about 30 years. Among those ejected was
appellant would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill. So he the appellant who, to avoid trouble, voluntarily dismantled his house, built in 1947 at a cost of around
addressed the group, saying- 'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will P20,000.00, and transferred to his other house which he built in 1962 or 1963 near the highway. The
talk it over - what is good,' addressing the deceased Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. The second house is not far from the site of the dismantled house. Its ground floor has a store operated
deceased Fleischer, however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant apparently lost by Mrs. June Talens who was renting a portion thereof. He also transferred his store from his former
his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran residence to the house near the highway. Aside from the store, he also had a rice mill located about
towards the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia, likewise hitting 15 meters east of the house, and a concrete pavement between the rice mill and the house, which is
him (pp. 127-133, t.s.n., Defense transcript). Both Fleischer and Rubia died as a result of the used for drying grains and copra.
shooting' (pp. 9-14, t.s.n., Pieza I; pp. 8-9, Appellant's Brief, p. 161, rec.).
On November 14, 1966, appellant was among the settlers on whose behalf Jose V. Gamboa and other
It appears, however, that this incident is intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between the leaders filed Civil Case No. 755 in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Branch I, to obtain an
Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer was the secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia injunction or annulment of the order of award with prayer for preliminary injunction. During the
the assistant manager, on the one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato, among whom was pendency of this case, appellant on February 21, 1967 entered into a contract of lease with the
appellant. company whereby he agreed to lease an area of approximately 100 to 140 square meters of Lot No.
38 from the company (Exh. 9, p. 1, Folder of Exhibits for Defense) for a consideration of P16.00
From the available records of the related cases which had been brought to the Court of Appeals (CA- monthly. According to him, he signed the contract although the ownership of the land was still
G.R. Nos. 28858-R and 50583-R) and to this Court on certiorari (G.R. No. L-26757 and L-45504), WE uncertain, in order to avoid trouble, until the question of ownership could be decided. He never paid
take judicial notice of the following antecedent facts: the agreed rental, although he alleges that the milling job they did for Rubia was considered payment.
On June 25, 1968, deceased Fleischer wrote him a letter with the following tenor:
Appellant was among those persons from northern and central Luzon who went to Mindanao in 1937
and settled in Maitum, a former sitio of Kiamba, and now a separate municipality of South Cotabato. "You have not paid six months rental to Fleischers & Co., Inc. for that portion of land in which your
He established his residence therein, built his house, cultivated the area, and was among those who house and ricemill are located as per agreement executed on February 21, 1967. You have not paid
petitioned then President Manuel L. Quezon to order the subdivision of the defunct Celebes Plantation even after repeated attempts of collection made by Mr. Flaviano Rubia and myself.
and nearby Kalaong Plantation totalling about 2,000 hectares, for distribution among the settlers.
"In view of the obvious fact that you do not comply with the agreement, I have no alternative but to 227, supra). According to appellant, Fleischer's remarks caused this reaction in him: "As if, I lost my
terminate our agreement on this date. senses and unknowingly I took the gun on the bed and unknowingly also I shot Mr. Fleischer, without
realizing it, I shot Mr. Fleischer" (p. 132, supra). As for the shooting of Rubia, appellant further
"I am giving you six months to remove your house, ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps from testified:
the land of Fleischers & Co., Inc. This six-month period shall expire on December 31, 1966.
"When I shot Davis Fleischer, Flaviano Rubia was nailing and upon hearing the shot, Mr. Rubia looked
"In the event the above constructions have not been removed within the six-month period, the at Mr. Fleischer and when Mr. Fleischer fell down, Mr. Rubia ran towards the jeep and knowing that
company shall cause their immediate demolition" (Exhibit 10, p. 2, supra). there was a firearm in the jeep and thinking that if he will take that firearm he will kill me, I shot at
him" (p. 132, supra, italics supplied).
On August 21, 1968, both deceased, together with their laborers, commenced fencing Lot 38 by
putting bamboo posts along the property line parallel to the highway. Some posts were planted right The foregoing statements of appellant were never controverted by the prosecution. They claim,
on the concrete drier of appellant, thereby cutting diagonally across its center (pp. 227-228, t.s.n., however, that the deceased were in lawful exercise of their rights of ownership over the land in
Vol. 2), with the last post just adjacent to appellant's house (p. 231, t.s.n., supra). The fence, when question, when they did the fencing that sealed off appellant's access to the highway.
finished, would have the effect of shutting off the accessibility to appellant's house and rice mill from
the highway, since the door of the same opens to the Fleischers' side. The fencing continued on that A review of the circumstances prior to the shooting as borne by the evidence reveals that five
fateful day of August 22, 1968, with the installation of four strands of barbed wire to the posts. persons, consisting of the deceased and their three laborers, were doing the fencing and chiselling of
the walls of appellant's house. The fence they were putting up was made of bamboo posts to which
At about 2:30 p.m. on the said day, appellant who was taking a nap after working on his farm all were being nailed strands of barbed wire in several layers. Obviously, they were using tools which
morning, was awakened by some noise as if the wall of his house was being chiselled. Getting up and could be lethal weapons, such as nail and hammer, bolo or bamboo cutter, pliers, crowbar, and other
looking out of the window, he found that one of the laborers of Fleischer was indeed chiselling the necessary gadgets. Besides, it was not disputed that the jeep which they used in going to the place
wall of his house with a crowbar (p. 129, t.s.n., Vol. 6), while deceased Rubia was nailing the barbed was parked just a few steps away, and in it there was a gun leaning near the steering wheel. When
wire and deceased Fleischer was commanding his laborers. The jeep used by the deceased was the appellant woke up to the sound of the chiselling on his walls, his first reaction was to look out of
parked on the highway. The rest of the incident is narrated in the People's Brief as above-quoted. the window. Then he saw the damage being done to his house, compounded by the fact that his
Appellant surrendered to the police thereafter, bringing with him shotgun No. 1119576 and claiming house and rice mill will be shut off from the highway by the fence once it is finished. He therefore
he shot two persons (Exh. P, p. 31, Defense Exhibits). appealed to his compadre, the deceased Rubia, to stop what they were doing and to talk things over
with him. But deceased Fleischer answered angrily with "gademit" and directed his men to proceed
Appellant now questions the propriety of his conviction, assigning the following errors: with what they were doing.

"First Assignment of Error: That the lower court erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering the continuance of the fencing would have
fact that he acted in defense of his person; and resulted in the further chiselling of the walls of appellant's house as well as the closure of the access
to and from his house and rice mill -- which were not only imminent but were actually in progress.
"Second Assignment of Error: That the court a quo also erred in convcting defendant-appellant There is no question, therefore, that there was aggression on the part of the victims: Fleischer was
although he acted in defense of his rights" (p. 20 of Appellant's Brief, p. 145, rec.). ordering, and Rubia was actually participating in the fencing. This was indeed aggression, not on the
person of appellant, but on his property rights.
The act of killing of the two deceased by appellant is not disputed. Appellant admitted having shot
them from the window of his house with the shotgun which he surrendered to the police authorities. The question is, was the aggression unlawful or lawful? Did the victims have a right to fence off the
He claims, however, that he did so in defense of his person and of his rights, and therefore he should contested property, to destroy appellant's house and to shut off his ingress and egress to his
be exempt from criminal liability. residence and the highway?

Defense of one's person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance under Art. 11, par. 1 of the Article 30 of the Civil Code recognizes the right of every owner to enclose or fence his land or
Revised Penal Code, but in order for it to be appreciated, the following requisites must occur: tenements.

"First. Unlawful aggression; However, at the time of the incident on August 22, 1968, Civil Case No. 755 for annulment of the
order of award to Fleischer and Company was still pending in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato.
"Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; The parties could not have known that the case would be dismissed over a year after the incident on
August 22, 1968, as it was dismissed on January 23, 1970 on ground of res judicata, in view of the
"Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself" (Art. 11, par. 1, dismissal in 1965 (by the Court of Appeals) of Civil Case No. 240 filed in 1950 for the annulment of
Revised Penal Code, as amended). the award to the company, between the same parties, which the company won by virtue of the
compromise agreement in spite of the subsequent repudiation by the settlers of said compromise
The aggression referred to by appellant is the angry utterance by deceased Fleischer of the following agreement; and that such 1970 dismissal also carried the dismissal of the supplemental petition filed
words: "Hindi, sigue, gademit, avante", in answer to his request addressed to his compadre, the by the Republic of the Philippines on November 28, 1968 to annul the sales patent and to cancel the
deceased Rubia, when he said, "Pare, hinto mona ninyo at pag-usapan natin kung ano ang mabuti" corresponding certificate of title issued to the company, on the ground that the Director of Lands had
(pp. 227-229, t.s.n., Vol. 6). This was in reaction to his having been awakened to see the wall of his no authority to conduct the sale due to his failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for
house being chiselled. The verbal exchange took place while the two deceased were on the grounds publication. The dismissal of the government's supplemental petition was premised on the ground
doing the fencing and the appellant was up in his house looking out of his window (pp. 225- that after its filing on November 28, 1968, nothing more was done by the petitioner Republic of the
Philippines except to adopt all the evidence and arguments of plaintiffs with whom it joined as parties- produced by the victims and their laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk
plaintiffs. things over with him was no provocation at all.

Hence, it is reasonable to believe that appellant was indeed hoping for a favorable judgment in Civil Be that as it may, appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements
Case No. 755 filed on November 14, 1966 and his execution of the contract of lease on February 21, for justification are present. He should therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims, but
1967 was just to avoid trouble. This was explained by him during cross-examination on January 21, he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to
1970, thus: paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

"It happened this way: we talked it over with my Mrs. that we better rent the place because even The crime committed is homicide on two counts. The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be
though we do not know who really owns this portion to avoid trouble. To avoid trouble we better pay appreciated in this case because of the presence of provocation on the part of the deceased. As WE
while waiting for the case because at that time, it was not known who is the right owner of the place. held earlier in People vs. Manlapaz (55 SCRA 598), the element of a sudden unprovoked attack is
So we decided until things will clear up and determine who is really the owner, we decided to pay therefore lacking.
rentals" (p. 169, t.s.n., Vol. 6).
Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, "it must clearly appear that the method of assault adopted
In any case, Fleischer had given him up to December 31, 1968 (Exh. 10, p. 2, Defense Exhibits) by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a special view to the accomplishment of the act
within which to vacate the land. He should have allowed appellant the peaceful enjoyment of his without risk to the assailant from any defense that the party assailed might have made. This cannot
properties up to that time, instead of chiselling the walls of his house and closing appellant's entrance be said of a situation where the slayer acted instantaneously . . ." (People vs. Cañete, 44 Phil. 481).
and exit to the highway.
WE likewise find the aggravating (qualifying) circumstance of evident premeditation not sufficiently
The following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines are in point: established. The only evidence presented to prove this circumstance was the testimony of Crisanto
Ibañez, 37 years old, married, resident of Maitum, South Cotabato, and a laborer of Fleischer and
"Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a Company, which may be summarized as follows:
possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of
the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to "On August 20, 1968 (two days before the incident) at about 7:00 A.M., he was drying corn near the
deliver the thing." house of Mr. and Mrs. Mamerto Narvaez at the crossing, Maitum, South Cotabato, when the accused
and his wife talked to him. Mrs. Narvaez asked him to help them, as he was working in the hacienda.
"Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed She further told him that if they fenced their house, there is a head that will be broken. Mamerto
therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws Narvaez added 'Noy, it is better that you will tell Mr. Fleischer because there will be nobody who will
and the Rules of Court" (Articles 536 and 539, Civil Code of the Philippines). break his head but I will be the one.' He relayed this to Mr. Flaviano Rubia, but the latter told him not
to believe as they were only idle threats designed to get him out of the hacienda" (pp. 297-303,
Conformably to the foregoing provisions, the deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage to t.s.n., Vol. 2).
appellant's house, nor to close his accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with them to
stop and talk things over with him. The assault on appellant's property, therefore, amounts to This single evidence is not sufficient to warrant appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of
unlawful aggression as contemplated by law. evident premeditation. As WE have consistently held, there must be "direct evidence of the planning
or preparation to kill the victim, . . . it is not enough that premeditation be suspected or surmised,
"Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of immediate and imminent but the criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evincing the determination to
kind" (People vs. Encomiendas, 46 SCRA 522). commit the crime" (People vs. Ordioles, 42 SCRA 238). Besides, there must be a "showing" that the
accused premeditated the killing; that the culprit clung to their (his) premeditated act; and that there
In the case at bar, there was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property which he had the was sufficient interval between the premeditation and the execution of the crime to allow them (him)
right to resist, pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides: to reflect upon the consequences of the act" (People vs. Gida, 102 SCRA 70).

"Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the Moreover, the obvious bias of witness Crisanto Ibañez, as a laborer of the deceased Davis Fleischer,
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably neutralizes his credibility.
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property" (italics supplied). Since in the case at bar, there was no direct evidence of the planning or preparation to kill the victims
nor that the accused premeditated the killing, and clung to his premeditated act, the trial court's
The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self conclusion as to the presence of such circumstance may not be endorsed.
defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph 1 of Article 11, Revised Penal Code. When the
appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was Evident premeditation is further negated by appellant pleading with the victims to stop the fencing
disproportionate to the attack. and destroying his house and to talk things over just before the shooting.

WE find, however, that the third element of defense of property is present, i.e., lack of sufficient But the trial court has properly appreciated the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
provocation on the part of appellant who was defending his property. As a matter of fact, there was surrender, it appearing that appellant surrendered to the authorities soon after the shooting.
no provocation at all on his part, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise
Likewise, WE find that passion and obfuscation attended the commission of the crime. The appellant WHEREFORE, FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ONLY TWO (2)
awoke to find his house being damaged and its accessibility to the highway as well as of his rice mill HOMICIDES, MITIGATED BY THE PRIVILEGED EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-
bodega being closed. Not only was his house being unlawfully violated; his business was also in DEFENSE AS WELL AS BY TWO (2) GENERIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY
danger of closing down for lack of access to the highway. These circumstances, coming so near to the SURRENDER AND OBFUSCATION, WITHOUT ANY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, APPELLANT IS
time when his first house was dismantled, thus forcing him to transfer to his only remaining house, HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR (4) MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR, TO
must have so aggravated his obfuscation that he lost momentarily all reason causing him to reach for INDEMNIFY EACH GROUP OF HEIRS OF DAVIS FLEISCHER AND OF FLAVIANO RUBIA IN THE SUM OF
his shotgun and fire at the victims in defense of his rights. Considering the antecedent facts of this FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000.00) PESOS, WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT AND WITHOUT ANY
case, where appellant had thirty years earlier migrated to this so-called "land of promise" with AWARD FOR MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
dreams and hopes of relative prosperity and tranquility, only to find his castle crumbling at the hands
of the deceased, his dispassionate plea going unheeded -- all these could be too much for any man -- CONSIDERING THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNDER DETENTION FOR ALMOST FOURTEEN (14) YEARS
he should be credited with this mitigating circumstance. NOW SINCE HIS VOLUNTARY SURRENDER ON AUGUST 22, 1968, HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS
HEREBY ORDERED. NO COSTS.
Consequently, appellant is guilty of two crimes of homicide only, the killing not being attended by any
qualifying nor aggravating circumstance, but extenuated by the privileged mitigating circumstance of SO ORDERED.
incomplete defense -- in view of the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victims and
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant -- and by two generic mitigating Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Escolin, Vasquez,
circumstance of voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation. and Relova, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., I dissent. The self-defense of the Revised Penal Code refers to unlawful aggression
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for homicide as reclusion temporal. on persons, not property.
Pursuant to Article 69, supra, the penalty lower by one or two degrees shall be imposed if the deed is Plana, J., in the result.
not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same. Gutierrez, Jr., J., please see separate opinion.
Considering that the majority of the requirements for defense of property are present, the penalty Aquino, J., is on leave.
may be lowered by two degrees, i.e., to prision correccional. And under paragraph 5 of Article 64, the
same may further be reduced by one degree, i.e., arresto mayor, because of the presence of two
mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance.

The civil liability of the appellant should be modified. In the case of Zulueta vs. Pan American World
Airways (43 SCRA 397), the award for moral damages was reduced because the plaintiff contributed
to the gravity of defendant's reaction. In the case at bar, the victims not only contributed but they
actually provoked the attack by damaging appellant's properties and business. Considering appellant's
standing in the community, being married to a municipal councilor, the victims' actuations were
apparently designed to humiliate him and destroy his reputation. The records disclose that his wife, SEPARATE OPINION
councilor Feliza Narvaez, was also charged in these two cases and detained without bail despite the
absence of evidence linking her to the killings. She was dropped as a defendant only upon motion of
the prosecution dated October 31, 1968 (p. 14, CFI rec. of Crim. Case No. 1816), but acted upon on GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
November 4, 1968 (p. 58, CFI rec. of Criminal Case No. 1815).
While I agree with the order to release the appellant, I am constrained to dissent in part. It is true
Moreover, these cases arose out of an inordinate desire on the part of Fleischer and Company, despite that Art. 429, Civil Code of the Philippines, provides that the owner or legal possessor of a thing may
its extensive landholdings in a Central Visayan province, to extend its accumulation of public lands to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
the resettlement areas of Cotabato. Since it had the capability -- financial and otherwise -- to carry physical invasion or usurpation of his property. It seems to me, however, that an attack on the
out its land accumulation scheme, the lowly settlers, who uprooted their families from their native soil person defending his property is an indispensable element where an accused pleads self-defense but
in Luzon to take advantage of the government's resettlement program, but had no sufficient means to what is basically defended is only property.
fight the big landowners, were the ones prejudiced. Thus, the moral and material suffering of
appellant and his family deserves leniency as to his civil liability. Defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and defense of property can only be
invoked when it is coupled with some form of attack on the person of one entrusted with said
Furthermore, Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code requires a person convicted of prision property. The defense of property, whether complete or incomplete, to be available in prosecutions
correccional or arresto mayor and fine who has no property with which to meet his civil liabilities to for murder or homicide must be coupled with an attack by the one getting the property on the person
serve a subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one (1) day for each P2.50. However, the amendment defending it.
introduced by Republic Act No. 5465 on April 21, 1969 made the provisions of Art. 39 applicable to
fines only and not to reparation of the damage caused, indemnification of consequential damages and In the case now before Us, there is absolutely no evidence that an attack was attempted, much less
costs of proceedings. Considering that Republic Act 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not a made upon the person of appellant. The mere utterance "No, gademit, proceed, go ahead" is not the
habitual delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal unlawful aggression which entitles appellant to the plea of self-defense. I agree with the majority
Code. opinion that the crime is homicide but without any privileged mitigating circumstance.
Therefore, since the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) homicides, mitigated by
the two generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation, without any
aggravating circumstance, the maximum sentence the appellant should have served was prision
mayor plus the indemnification to each group of heirs of Davis Fleischer and of Flamiano Rubia of the
sum of Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment, but without any award
for moral damages and attorney's fees.

Considering that appellant has been under detention for almost fourteen (14) years now since August
22, 1968, he has served the penalty and should be released.
 SECOND DIVISION willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make, draw and issue in favor of Francel Realty
Corporation a check 813514 drawn against Citibank, a duly established domestic
banking institution in the amount of P9,304.00 Philippine Currency dated/postdated
[G.R. No. 125059. March 17, 2000]
October 30, 1990 in payment of an obligation, knowing fully well at the time of
issue that she/he did not have any funds in the drawee bank of (sic) the payment of
FRANCISCO T. SYCIP, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE such check; that upon presentation of said check to said bank for payment, the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. same was dishonored for the reason that the drawer thereof, accused Francisco T.
Sycip, Jr. did not have any funds therein, and despite notice of dishonor thereof,
DECISION accused failed and refused and still fails and refused (sic) to redeem or make good
said check, to the damage and prejudice of the said Francel Realty Corporation in
the amount aforementioned and in such other amount as may be awarded under
QUISUMBING, J.: the provisions of the Civil Code.

For review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated February 29, 1996, in CA-G.R. "CONTRARY TO LAW."[1]
CR No. 15993, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, in
Criminal Cases Nos. Q-91-25910 to 15, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
B.P. Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law. Criminal Cases No. Q-91-25911 to Q-91-25915, with Informations similarly worded as in Criminal
Case No. Q-91-25910, except for the dates, and check numbers[2] were consolidated and jointly tried.

The facts in this case, as culled from the records, are as follows:
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded "Not Guilty" to each of the charges. Trial then proceeded.

On August 24, 1989, Francisco T. Sycip agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty
Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit in the latter's project at Bacoor, Cavite. The prosecution's case, as summarized by the trial court and adopted by the appellate court, is as
follows:

Upon execution of the contract to sell, Sycip, as required, issued to FRC, forty-eight (48) postdated
checks, each in the amount of P9,304.00, covering 48 monthly installments. "The prosecution evidence established that on or about August 24, 1989, at the
office of the private complainant Francel Realty Corporation (a private domestic
corporation engaged in the real estate business) at 822 Quezon Avenue, QC,
After moving in his unit, Sycip complained to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete accused Francisco Sycip, Jr. drew, issued, and delivered to private complainant
features of the townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint. Dissatisfied, Sycip served on FRC two Francel Realty Corporation (FRC hereinafter) six checks (among a number of other
(2) notarial notices to the effect that he was suspending his installment payments on the unit pending checks), each for P9,304.00 and drawn pay to the order of FRC and against
compliance with the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Francisco's account no. 845515 with Citibank, to wit: Check No. 813514 dated
Regulatory Board (HLURB). Sycip and 12 out of 14 unit buyers then filed a complaint with the HLURB. October 30, 1990 (Exh. C), Check No. 813515 dated November 30, 1990 (Exh. D),
The complaint was dismissed as to the defects, but FRC was ordered by the HLURB to finish all Check No. 813518 dated February 28,1991 (Exh. E), Check No. 813516 dated
incomplete features of its townhouse project. Sycip appealed the dismissal of the complaint as to the December 30, 1990 (Exh. F), Check No. 813517 dated January 30, 1991 (Exh. G)
alleged defects. and Check No. 813519 dated March 30, 1991 (Exh. H), as and in partial payment of
the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the house and lot subject of the written
Notwithstanding the notarial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment Sycip's postdated contract executed and entered into by and between FRC as seller and Francisco as
checks in its possession. Sycip sent "stop payment orders" to the bank. When FRC continued to buyer on said date of August 24, 1989 (Exh. B, also Exh. 1). The total stipulated
present the other postdated checks to the bank as the due date fell, the bank advised Sycip to close purchase price for the house and lot was P451,700.00, of which Francisco paid FRC
his checking account to avoid paying bank charges every time he made a "stop payment" order on in the sum of P135,000.00 as down payment, with Francisco agreeing and
the forthcoming checks. Due to the closure of petitioner's checking account, the drawee bank committing himself to pay the balance of P316,000.00 in 48 equal monthly
dishonored six postdated checks. FRC filed a complaint against petitioner for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 installments of P9,304.00 (which sum already includes interest on successive
involving said dishonored checks. monthly balance) effective September 30, 1989 and on the 30th day of each month
thereafter until the stipulated purchase price is paid in full. The said six Citibank
checks, Exhs. C thru H, as earlier indicated were drawn, issued, and delivered by
On November 8, 1991, the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office filed with the RTC of Quezon City six Francisco in favor of FRC as and in partial payment of the said 48 equal monthly
Informations docketed as Criminal Cases No. Q-91-25910 to Q-91-25915, charging petitioner for installments under their said contract (Exh. B, also Exh. 1). Sometime in September
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. 1989, the Building Official's certificate of occupancy for the subject house -a
residential townhouse -was issued (Exh. N) and Francisco took possession and
The accusative portion of the Information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-25910 reads: started in the use and occupancy of the subject house and lot.

"That on or about the 30th day of October 1990 in Quezon City, Philippines and "When the subject six checks, Exhs. C thru H, were presented to the Citibank for
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, payment on their respective due dates, they were all returned to FRC dishonored
 and unpaid for the reason: account closed as indicated in the drawee bank's "WHEREFORE, in each of Crim. Cases Nos. Q-91-25910, Q-91-25911, Q-91-25912,
stamped notations on the face and back of each check; in fact, as indicated in the Q-91-25913, Q-91-25914 and Q-91-25915, the Court finds accused Francisco T.
corresponding record of Francisco's account no. 815515 with Citibank, said account Sycip, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Sec. 1 of Batas Pambansa
already had a zero balance as early as September 14, 1990 (Exh. 1-5). Blg. 22 and, accordingly, he is hereby sentenced in and for each case to suffer
Notwithstanding the fact that FRC, first thru its executive vice president and project imprisonment of thirty (30) days and pay the costs. Further, the accused is hereby
manager and thereafter thru its counsel, had notified Francisco, orally and in ordered to pay the offended party, Francel Realty Corporation, as and for actual
writing, of the checks' dishonor and demanded from him the payment of the damages, the total sum of fifty-five thousand eight hundred twenty four pesos
amount thereof, still Francisco did not payor make good any of the checks (Exhs. I (P55,824.00) with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of commencement of
thru K)..."[3] these actions, that is, November 8, 1991, until full payment thereof.

The case for the defense, as summarized also by the trial court and adopted by the Court of Appeals, "SO ORDERED."[5]
is as follows:
Dissatisfied, Sycip appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. His appeal was docketed as CA-G.R.
"The defense evidence in sum is to the effect that after taking possession and CR No. 15993. But on February 29, 1996, the appellate court ruled:
starting in the use and occupancy of the subject townhouse unit, Francisco became
aware of its various construction defects; that he called the attention of FRC, thru
"On the basis of the submission of the People, We find and so hold that appellant
its project manager, requesting that appropriate measures be forthwith instituted,
has no basis to rely on the provision of PD 957 to justify the non-payment of his
but despite his several requests, FRC did not acknowledge, much less attend to
obligation, the closure of his checking account and the notices sent by him to
them; that Francisco thus mailed to FRC a verified letter dated June 6, 1990 (Exh.
private complainant that he will stop paying his monthly amortizations."[6]
2) in sum giving notice that effective June 1990, he will cease and desist 'from
paying my monthly amortization of NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FOUR
(P9,304.00) PESOS towards the settlement of my obligation concerning my Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on March 18, 1996, but it was denied per Resolution
purchase of Unit No. 14 of FRC Townhomes referred to above, unless and until your dated April 22, 1996.
Office satisfactorily complete(s) the construction, renovation and/or repair of my
townhouses (sic) unit referred to above and that should FRC 'persist in ignoring my Hence, the instant petition anchored on the following assignment of errors:
aforesaid requests, I shall, after five (5) days from your receipt of this Verified
Notice, forthwith petition the [HLURB] for Declaratory Relief and Consignation to
grant me provisional relief from my obligation to pay my monthly amortization to I
your good Office and allow me to deposit said amortizations with [HLURB] pending
your completion of FRC Townhomes Unit in question'; that Francisco thru counsel "THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER
wrote FRC, its president, and its counsel notices/letters in sum to the effect that COURT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY JUSTIFIABLE
Francisco and all other complainants in the [HLURB] case against FRC shall cease CAUSE TO STOP OR OTHERWISE PREVENT THE PAYMENT OF THE SUBJECT CHECKS
and desist from paying their monthly amortizations unless and until FRC BY THE DRAWEE BANK.
satisfactorily completes the construction of their units in accordance with the plans
and specifications thereof as approved by the [HLURB] and as warranted by the FRC
in their contracts and that the dishonor of the subject checks was a natural II
consequence of such suspension of payments, and also advising FRC not to encash
or deposit all other postdated checks issued by Francisco and the other "THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT MUST BE
complainants and still in FRC's possession (Exhs. 3 thru 5); that Francisco and the DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COMPLAIN AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT
other complainants filed the [HLURB] case against FRC and later on a decision was OF THE TOWNHOUSE UNIT AND THE TOWNHOUSE PROJECT.
handed down therein and the same is pending appeal with the Board (Exhs. 6, 7, &
12 thru 17, also Exh. 8); that as of the time of presentation of the subject checks
III
for payment by the drawee bank, Francisco had at least P150,000.00 cash or credit
with Citibank (Exhs. 10 & 11) and, that Francisco closed his account no. 845515
with Citibank conformably with the bank's customer service officer's advice to close "THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER
his said account instead of making a stop-payment order for each of his more than COURT THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS WITH
30 post-dated checks still in FRC's possession at the time, so as to avoid the THE DRAWEE BANK TO COVER THE SUBJECT CHECKS UPON PRESENTMENT FOR
P600.00-penalty imposed by the bank for every check subject of a stop-payment PAYMENT THEREOF.
order."[4]
IV
On March 11, 1994, the trial court found petitioner guilty of violating Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 in each
of the six cases, disposing as follows:
 "THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER Admittedly, what are involved here are postdated checks. Postdating simply means that on the date
COURT CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND AWARDING DAMAGES IN indicated on its face, the check would be properly funded, not that the checks should be deemed as
FAVOR OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT."[7] issued only then.[14] The checks in this case were issued at the time of the signing of the Contract to
Sell in August 1989. But we find from the records no showing that the time said checks were issued,
petitioner had knowledge that his deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to cover them
The principal issue before us is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction
when presented for encashment.[15] On the contrary, there is testimony by petitioner that at the time
of petitioner for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law.
of presentation of the checks, he had P150,000.00 cash or credit with Citibank.

Petitioner argues that the court a quo erred when it affirmed his conviction for violation of B.P. Blg.
As the evidence for the defense showed, the closure of petitioner's Account No. 845515 with Citibank
22, considering that he had cause to stop payment of the checks issued to respondent. Petitioner
was not for insufficiency of funds. It was made upon the advice of the drawee bank, to avoid payment
insists that under P.D. No. 957, the buyer of a townhouse unit has the right to suspend his
of hefty bank charges each time petitioner issued a "stop payment" order to prevent encashment of
amortization payments, should the subdivision or condominium developer fail to develop or complete
postdated checks in private respondent's possession.[16] Said evidence contradicts the prima
the project in accordance with duly-approved plans and specifications. Given the findings of the
facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds. But it establishes petitioner's state of mind
HLURB that certain aspects of private complainant's townhouse project were incomplete and
at the time said checks were issued on August 24, 1989. Petitioner definitely had no knowledge that
undeveloped, the exercise of his right to suspend payments should not render him liable under B.P.
his funds or credit would be insufficient when the checks would be presented for encashment. He
Blg. 22.
could not have foreseen that he would be advised by his own bank in the future, to close his account
to avoid paying the hefty banks charges that came with each "stop payment" order issued to prevent
The Solicitor General argues that since what petitioner was charged with were violations of B.P. Blg. private respondent from encashing the 30 or so checks in its possession. What the prosecution has
22, the intent and circumstances surrounding the issuance of a worthless check are immaterial.[8] The established is the closure of petitioner's checking account. But this does not suffice to prove the
gravamen of the offense charged is the act itself of making and issuing a worthless check or one that second element of the offense under B.P. Blg. 22, which explicitly requires "evidence of knowledge of
is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. Mere issuing of a bad check is malum insufficient funds" by the accused at the time the check or checks are presented for encashment.
prohibitum, pernicious and inimical to public welfare. In his view, P.D. No. 957 does not provide
petitioner a sufficient defense against the charges against him.
To rely on the presumption created by B.P. No. 22 as the prosecution did in this case, would be to
misconstrue the import of requirements for conviction under the law. It must be stressed that every
Under the provisions of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. No. 22),[9] an offense is committed when the element of the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, never presumed. Furthermore,
following elements are present: penal statutes are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Under the
Bouncing Checks Law, the punishable act must come clearly within both the spirit and letter of the
(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for statute.[17]
value;
While B.P. Blg. 22 was enacted to safeguard the interest of the banking system,[18] it is difficult to see
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does how conviction of the accused in this case will protect the sanctity of the financial system. Moreover,
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such protection must also be afforded the interest of townhouse buyers under P.D. No. 957.[19] A statute
check in full upon its presentment; and must be construed in relation to other laws so as to carry out the legitimate ends and purposes
intended by the legislature.[20] Courts will not strictly follow the letter of one statute when it leads
away from the true intent of legislature and when ends are inconsistent with the general purpose of
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of the act.[21] More so, when it will mean the contravention of another valid statute. Both laws have to
funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any be reconciled and given due effect.
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[10]

Note that we have upheld a buyer's reliance on Section 23 of P.D. 957 to suspend payments until
In this case, we find that although the first element of the offense exists, the other elements have not such time as the owner or developer had fulfilled its obligations to the buyer.[22]This exercise of a
been established beyond reasonable doubt. statutory right to suspend installment payments, is to our mind, a valid defense against the purported
violations of B.P. Blg. 22 that petitioner is charged with.
To begin with, the second element involves knowledge on the part of the issuer at the time of the
check's issuance that he did not have enough funds or credit in the bank for Given the findings of the HLURB as to incomplete features in the construction of petitioner's and other
payment thereof upon its presentment. B.P. No. 22 creates a presumption juris tantum that the units of the subject condominium bought on installment from FRC, we are of the view that petitioner
second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present.[11] But had a valid cause to order his bank to stop payment. To say the least, the third element of
such evidence may be rebutted. If not rebutted or contradicted, it will suffice to sustain a judgment in "subsequent dishonor of the check... without valid cause" appears to us not established by the
favor of the issue, which it supports.[12] As pointed out by the Solicitor General, such knowledge of the prosecution. As already stated, the prosecution tried to establish the crime on a prima
insufficiency of petitioner's funds "is legally presumed from the dishonor of his checks for insufficiency facie presumption in B.P. Blg. 22. Here that presumption is unavailing, in the presence of a valid
of funds."[13]But such presumption cannot hold if there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, we cause to stop payment, thereby negating the third element of the crime.
find that the other party has presented evidence to contradict said presumption. Hence, the
prosecution is duty bound to prove every element of the offense charged, and not merely rely on a
rebuttable presumption.
Offenses punished by a special law, like the Bouncing Checks Law, are not subject to the Revised
Penal Code, but the Code is supplementary to such a law.[23] We find nothing in the text of B.P. Blg.
22, which would prevent the Revised Penal Code from supplementing it. Following Article 11 (5)[24] of
the Revised Penal Code, petitioner's exercise of a right of the buyer under Article 23 of P.D. No. 957 is
a valid defense to the charges against him.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Petitioner Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., is ACQUITTED of
the charges against him under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, for lack of sufficient evidence to prove the
offenses charged beyond reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

 FIRST DIVISION without justifiable cause, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and shoot one Jimmy Valino, hitting him several times at the vital
parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter, serious and mortal wounds
SPO2 RUPERTO CABANLIG, G.R. No. 148431 which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, which crime was
Petitioner, committed by the accused in relation to their office as members of the Philippine
Present: National Police of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, the deceased, who was then detained for
Davide, Jr., C.J., robbery and under the custody of the accused, having been killed while being taken
Chairman, to the place where he allegedly concealed the effects of the crime, to the damage
Quisumbing, and prejudice of the heirs of said victim, in such amount as may be awarded under
- versus- Ynares-Santiago, the provisions of the New Civil Code.
Carpio, and
Azcuna, JJ. CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE Promulgated:

OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Arraignment and Plea
Respondents, July 28, 2005

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
On 15 December 1993, the accused police officers Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban
pleaded not guilty.
DECISION

CARPIO, J.: Version of the Prosecution

The Case

On 24 September 1992 a robbery occurred in the Municipality of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija.

Four days later or on 28 September 1992, the investigating authorities apprehended three suspects:
This petition for review[1] seeks to reverse the Decision[2] of the Fifth Division of the Jordan Magat (Magat), Randy Reyes (Reyes) and Valino. The police recovered most of the stolen
Sandiganbayan dated 11 May 1999 and Resolution[3] dated 2 May 2001 affirming the conviction of items. However, a flower vase and a small radio were still missing. Cabanlig asked the three suspects
SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig (Cabanlig) in Criminal Case No. 19436 for homicide. The Sandiganbayan where these two items were. Reyes replied that the items were at his house.
sentenced Cabanlig to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four months of arresto mayor as minimum
to two years and four months of prision correctional as maximum and to pay P50,000 to the heirs of Cabanlig asked his colleagues, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis and Esteban, to accompany him in
Jimmy Valino (Valino). Cabanlig shot Valino after Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite of another retrieving the flower vase and radio. Cabanlig then brought out Reyes and Magat from their cell,
policeman and tried to escape from the custody of the police. The Sandiganbayan acquitted Cabanligs intending to bring the two during the retrieval operation. It was at this point that Valino informed
co-accused, SPO1 Carlos Padilla (Padilla), PO2 Meinhart Abesamis (Abesamis), SPO2 Lucio Mercado Cabanlig that he had moved the vase and radio to another location without the knowledge of his two
(Mercado) and SPO1 Rady Esteban (Esteban). cohorts. Cabanlig decided instead to bring along Valino, leaving behind Magat and Reyes.

The Charge Around 6:30 p.m., five fully armed policemen in uniform Cabanlig, Padilla, Mercado,
Abesamis and Esteban escorted Valino to Barangay Sinasahan, Nueva Ecija to recover the missing
Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban were charged with murder in an amended flower vase and radio. The policemen and Valino were aboard a police vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up jeep.
information that reads as follows: The jeep was built like an ordinary jeepney. The rear end of the jeep had no enclosure. A metal
covering separated the drivers compartment and main body of the jeep. There was no opening or
That on or about September 28, 1992, in the Municipality of Penaranda, door between the two compartments of the jeep. Inside the main body of the jeep, were two long
Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable benches, each of which was located at the left and right side of the jeep.
Court, the above-named accused, SPO[2] Ruperto C. Cabanlig, SPO1 Carlos E.
Padilla, PO2 Meinhart C. Abesamis, SPO2 Lucio L. Mercado and SPO1 Rady S. Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban were seated with Valino inside the main body of the jeep.
Esteban, all public officers being members of the Philippine National Police, Esteban was right behind Abesamis at the left bench. Valino, who was not handcuffed, was between
conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, Cabanlig and Mercado at the right bench. Valino was seated at Cabanligs left and at Mercados right.
with treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage of nighttime and Mercado was seated nearest to the opening of the rear of the jeep.
uninhabited place to facilitate the execution of the crime, with use of firearms and
 Just after the jeep had crossed the Philippine National Railway bridge and while the jeep was MONTHS of arresto mayor, as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS
slowly negotiating a bumpy and potholed road, Valino suddenly grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite and of prision correccional, as maximum. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Jimmy
jumped out of the jeep. Valino was able to grab Mercados M16 Armalite when Mercado scratched his Valino the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, and the costs.
head and tried to reach his back because some flying insects were pestering Mercado. Mercado
shouted hoy! when Valino suddenly took the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig, who was then facing the rear of SO ORDERED.[5]
the vehicle, saw Valinos act of taking away the M16 Armalite. Cabanlig acted immediately. Without On motion for reconsideration, Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy Jr. (Associate Justice Badoy)
issuing any warning of any sort, and with still one foot on the running board, Cabanlig fired one shot dissented from the decision. Associate Justice Badoy pointed out that there was imminent danger on
at Valino, and after two to three seconds, Cabanlig fired four more successive shots. Valino did not the lives of the policemen when Valino grabbed the infallible Armalite[6] from Mercado and jumped out
fire any shot. from the rear of the jeep. At a distance of only three feet from Cabanlig, Valino could have sprayed
the policemen with bullets. The firing of a warning shot from Cabanlig was no longer necessary.
The shooting happened around 7:00 p.m., at dusk or nag-aagaw ang dilim at liwanag. Associate Justice Badoy thus argued for Cabanligs acquittal.
Cabanlig approached Valinos body to check its pulse. Finding none, Cabanlig declared Valino dead.
Valino sustained three mortal wounds one at the back of the head, one at the left side of the chest, In a vote of four to one, the Sandiganbayan affirmed the decision.[7] The dispositive portion of the
and one at the left lower back. Padilla and Esteban remained with the body. The other three Resolution reads:
policemen, including Cabanlig, went to a funeral parlor.
The following morning, 29 September 1992, a certain SPO4 Segismundo Lacanilao WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration is hereby
(Lacanilao) of the Cabanatuan Police went to Barangay Sinasahan, Nueva Ecija to investigate a case. DENIED.[8]
Lacanilao met Mercado who gave him instructions on how to settle the case that he was handling.
During their conversation, Mercado related that he and his fellow policemen salvaged (summarily
executed) a person the night before. Lacanilao asked who was salvaged. Mercado answered that it The Issues
was Jimmy Valino. Mercado then asked Lacanilao why he was interested in the identity of the person
who was salvaged. Lacanilao then answered that Jimmy Valino was his cousin. Mercado immediately
turned around and left. Cabanlig raises the following issues in his Memorandum:

WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DEFENSE OF

Version of the Defense FULFILLMENT OF DUTY PUT UP BY CABANLIG WAS INCOMPLETE

WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN RULING THAT CABANLIG COULD NOT

INVOKE SELF-DEFENSE/DEFENSE OF STRANGER TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS
Cabanlig admitted shooting Valino. However, Cabanlig justified the shooting as an act of self-
defense and performance of duty. Mercado denied that he told Lacanilao that he and his co-accused WHETHER THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN SENTENCING CABANLIG TO SUFFER
salvaged Valino. Cabanlig, Mercado, Abesamis, Padilla, and Esteban denied that they conspired to kill IMPRISONMENT AND IN ORDERING HIM TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF P50,000 TO THE
Valino. HEIRS OF VALINO[9]

The Sandiganbayans Ruling

The Sandiganbayan acquitted Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban as the court found no
evidence that the policemen conspired to kill or summarily execute Valino. Since Cabanlig admitted The Courts Ruling
shooting Valino, the burden is on Cabanlig to establish the presence of any circumstance that would
relieve him of responsibility or mitigate the offense committed.
The Sandiganbayan held that Cabanlig could not invoke self-defense or defense of a The petition has merit. We rule for Cabanligs acquittal.
stranger. The only defense that Cabanlig could properly invoke in this case is fulfillment of duty.
Cabanlig, however, failed to show that the shooting of Valino was the necessary consequence of the Applicable Defense is Fulfillment of Duty
due performance of duty. The Sandiganbayan pointed out that while it was the duty of the policemen
to stop the escaping detainee, Cabanlig exceeded the proper bounds of performing this duty when he We first pass upon the issue of whether Cabanlig can invoke two or more justifying
shot Valino without warning. circumstances. While there is nothing in the law that prevents an accused from invoking the justifying
circumstances or defenses in his favor, it is still up to the court to determine which justifying
The Sandiganbayan found no circumstance that would qualify the crime to murder. Thus, the circumstance is applicable to the circumstances of a particular case.
Sandiganbayan convicted Cabanlig only of homicide. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles.[10] Self-defense is based
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused CARLOS ESTOQUE PADILLA, on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm, while fulfillment of duty is premised on the
MEINHART CRUZ ABESAMIS, LUCIO LADIGNON MERCADO and RADY SALAZAR due performance of duty. The difference between the two justifying circumstances is clear, as the
ESTEBAN are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Accused RUPERTO requisites of self-defense and fulfillment of duty are different.
CONCEPCION CABANLIG is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of FOUR (4) The elements of self-defense are as follows:
 In this case, Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban were in the performance of
a) Unlawful Aggression; duty as policemen when they escorted Valino, an arrested robber, to retrieve some stolen items. We
b) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; uphold the finding of the Sandiganbayan that there is no evidence that the policemen conspired to kill
c) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[11] or summarily execute Valino. In fact, it was not Valino who was supposed to go with the policemen in
the retrieval operations but his two other cohorts, Magat and Reyes. Had the policemen staged the
escape to justify the killing of Valino, the M16 Armalite taken by Valino would not have been loaded
On the other hand, the requisites of fulfillment of duty are: with bullets.[20] Moreover, the alleged summary execution of Valino must be based on evidence and
not on hearsay.
1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office; Undoubtedly, the policemen were in the legitimate performance of their duty when Cabanlig
shot Valino. Thus, fulfillment of duty is the justifying circumstance that is applicable to this case. To
2. The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of determine if this defense is complete, we have to examine if Cabanlig used necessary force to prevent
the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.[12] Valino from escaping and in protecting himself and his co-accused policemen from imminent danger.

Fulfillment of Duty was Complete, Killing was Justified

A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force as is reasonably The Sandiganbayan convicted Cabanlig because his defense of fulfillment of duty was found
necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture to be incomplete. The Sandiganbayan believed that Cabanlig exceeded the fulfillment of his duty
him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm.[13] In case injury or death results from the when he immediately shot Valino without issuing a warning so that the latter would stop.[21]
policemans exercise of such force, the policeman could be justified in inflicting the injury or causing
the death of the offender if the policeman had used necessary force. Since a policemans duty requires We disagree with the Sandiganbayan.
him to overcome the offender, the force exerted by the policeman may therefore differ from that
which ordinarily may be offered in self-defense.[14]However, a policeman is never justified in using Certainly, an M16 Armalite is a far more powerful and deadly weapon than the bamboo lance
unnecessary force or in treating the offender with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous that the fugitive had run away with in People v. Delima. The policeman in People v. Delima was
means when the arrest could be affected otherwise.[15] held to have been justified in shooting to death the escaping fugitive because the policeman was
merely performing his duty.
Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty,
unlawful aggression from the victim is not a requisite. In People v. Delima,[16] a policeman was In this case, Valino was committing an offense in the presence of the policemen when Valino
looking for a fugitive who had several days earlier escaped from prison. When the policeman found grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado and jumped from the jeep to escape. The policemen would
the fugitive, the fugitive was armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. The have been justified in shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely necessary to prevent his
policeman demanded the surrender of the fugitive. The fugitive lunged at the policeman with his escape.[22] But Valino was not only an escaping detainee. Valino had also stolen the M16 Armalite of a
bamboo lance. The policeman dodged the lance and fired his revolver at the fugitive. The policeman policeman. The policemen had the duty not only to recapture Valino but also to recover the loose
missed. The fugitive ran away still holding the bamboo lance. The policeman pursued the fugitive and firearm. By grabbing Mercados M16 Armalite, which is a formidable firearm, Valino had placed the
again fired his revolver, hitting and killing the fugitive. The Court acquitted the policeman on the lives of the policemen in grave danger.
ground that the killing was done in the fulfillment of duty.
Had Cabanlig failed to shoot Valino immediately, the policemen would have been sitting
The fugitives unlawful aggression in People v. Delima had already ceased when the ducks. All of the policemen were still inside the jeep when Valino suddenly grabbed the M16 Armalite.
policeman killed him. The fugitive was running away from the policeman when he was shot. If the Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban were hemmed in inside the main body of the jeep, in the direct line of
policeman were a private person, not in the performance of duty, there would be no self-defense fire had Valino used the M16 Armalite. There would have been no way for Cabanlig, Mercado and
because there would be no unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased.[17] It may even appear Esteban to secure their safety, as there were no doors on the sides of the jeep. The only way out of
that the public officer acting in the fulfillment of duty is the aggressor, but his aggression is not the jeep was from its rear from which Valino had jumped. Abesamis and Padilla who were in the
unlawful, it being necessary to fulfill his duty.[18] drivers compartment were not aware that Valino had grabbed Mercados M16 Armalite. Abesamis and
Padilla would have been unprepared for Valinos attack.
While self-defense and performance of duty are two distinct justifying circumstances, self-
defense or defense of a stranger may still be relevant even if the proper justifying circumstance in a By suddenly grabbing the M16 Armalite from his unsuspecting police guard, Valino certainly
given case is fulfillment of duty. For example, a policemans use of what appears to be excessive force did not intend merely to escape and run away as far and fast as possible from the policemen. Valino
could be justified if there was imminent danger to the policemans life or to that of a stranger. If the did not have to grab the M16 Armalite if his sole intention was only to flee from the policemen. If he
policeman used force to protect his life or that of a stranger, then the defense of fulfillment of duty had no intention to engage the policemen in a firefight, Valino could simply have jumped from the
would be complete, the second requisite being present. jeep without grabbing the M16 Armalite. Valinos chances of escaping unhurt would have been far
better had he not grabbed the M16 Armalite which only provoked the policemen to recapture him and
In People v. Lagata,[19] a jail guard shot to death a prisoner whom he thought was recover the M16 Armalite with greater vigor. Valinos act of grabbing the M16 Armalite clearly showed
attempting to escape. The Court convicted the jail guard of homicide because the facts showed that a hostile intention and even constituted unlawful aggression.
the prisoner was not at all trying to escape. The Court declared that the jail guard could only fire at
the prisoner in self-defense or if absolutely necessary to avoid the prisoners escape.
 Facing imminent danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. Time was of the essence. It would that even the mere act of escaping could injure or kill him. The policemen were fully armed and they
have been foolhardy for the policemen to assume that Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite merely as a could use force to recapture him. By grabbing the M16 Armalite of his police escort, Valino assumed
souvenir of a successful escape. As we have pointed out in Pomoy v. People[23]: the consequences of his brazen and determined act. Surrendering was clearly far from Valinos mind.

Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that At any rate, Valino was amply warned. Mercado shouted hoy when Valino grabbed the M16
petitioner tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly Armalite. Although Cabanlig admitted that he did not hear Mercado shout hoy, Mercados shout should
tried to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty- have served as a warning to Valino. The verbal warning need not come from Cabanlig himself.
bound to prevent the snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a
detained person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to facilitate The records also show that Cabanlig first fired one shot. After a few seconds, Cabanlig fired
escape and to kill or maim persons in the vicinity, including petitioner himself. four more shots. Cabanlig had to shoot Valino because Valino at one point was facing the police
officers. The exigency of the situation warranted a quick response from the policemen.
According to the Sandiganbayan, Valino was not turning around to shoot because two of the
The Sandiganbayan, however, ruled that despite Valinos possession of a deadly firearm, three gunshot wounds were on Valinos back. Indeed, two of the three gunshot wounds were on
Cabanlig had no right to shoot Valino without giving Valino the opportunity to surrender. The Valinos back: one at the back of the head and the other at the left lower back. The Sandiganbayan,
Sandiganbayan pointed out that under the General Rules of Engagement, the use of force should be however, overlooked the location of the third gunshot wound. It was three inches below the left
applied only as a last resort when all other peaceful and non-violent means have been exhausted. The clavicle or on the left top most part of the chest area based on the Medico Legal Sketch showing the
Sandiganbayan held that only such necessary and reasonable force should be applied as would be entrances and exits of the three gunshot wounds.[33]
sufficient to conduct self-defense of a stranger, to subdue the clear and imminent danger posed, or to
overcome resistance put up by an offender. The Autopsy Report[34] confirms the location of the gunshot wounds, as follows:
The Sandiganbayan had very good reasons in steadfastly adhering to the policy that a law
enforcer must first issue a warning before he could use force against an offender. A law enforcers GUNSHOT WOUNDS modified by embalming.
overzealous performance of his duty could violate the rights of a citizen and worse cost the citizens
life. We have always maintained that the judgment and discretion of public officers, in the 1. ENTRANCE ovaloid, 1.6 x 1.5 cms; with area of tattooing around the
performance of their duties, must be exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but within the entrance, 4.0 x 3.0 cms.; located at the right postauricular region, 5.5 cms. behind
limits of the law.[24] The issuance of a warning before a law enforcer could use force would prevent and 1.5 cms. above the right external auditory meatus, directed forward downward
unnecessary bloodshed. Thus, whenever possible, a law enforcer should employ force only as a last fracturing the occipital bone, lacerating the right occipital portion of the brain and
resort and only after issuing a warning. fracturing the right cheek bone and making an EXIT wound, 1.5 x 2.0 cms. located
on right cheek, 4.0 cms. below and 3.0 cms.. in front of right external auditory
However, the duty to issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at all times and at all cost, meatus.
to the detriment of the life of law enforcers. The directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation
where several options are still available to the law enforcers. In exceptional circumstances such as 2. ENTRANCE ovaloid, 0.7 x 0.5 cms., located at the left chest; 6.5
this case, where the threat to the life of a law enforcer is already imminent, and there is no other cms. from the anterior median line, 136.5 cms. from the left heel directed
option but to use force to subdue the offender, the law enforcers failure to issue a warning is backward, downward and to the right, involving soft tissues, fracturing the 3rd rib,
excusable. left, lacerating the left upper lobe and the right lower lobe and finally making an
EXIT wound at the back, right side, 1.4 x 0.8 cms., 19.0 cms. from the posterior
In this case, the embattled policemen did not have the luxury of time. Neither did they have median line and 132.0 cms. from the right heel and grazing the medial aspect of the
much choice. Cabanligs shooting of Valino was an immediate and spontaneous reaction to imminent right arm.
danger. The weapon grabbed by Valino was not just any firearm. It was an M16 Armalite.

The M16 Armalite is an assault rifle adopted by the United Sates (US) Army as a
standard weapon in 1967 during the Vietnam War.[25] The M16 Armalite is still a general-issue rifle 3. ENTRANCE ovaloid, 0.6 x 0.5 located at the back, left side, 9.0 cms.
with the US Armed Forces and US law enforcement agencies.[26] The M16 Armalite has both from the posterior median line; 119.5 cms. from the left heel; directed forward,
semiautomatic and automatic capabilities.[27]It is 39 inches long, has a 30-round magazine and fires downward involving the soft tissues, lacerating the liver; and bullet was recovered
high-velocity .223-inch (5.56-mm) bullets.[28] The M16 Armalite is most effective at a range of 200 on the right anterior chest wall, 9.0 cms. form the anterior median line, 112.0 cms.
meters[29] but its maximum effective range could extend as far as 400 meters.[30] As a high velocity from the right heel.
firearm, the M16 Armalite could be fired at close range rapidly or with much volume of fire. [31] These
features make the M16 Armalite and its variants well suited for urban and jungle warfare. [32]
The M16 Armalite whether on automatic or semiautomatic setting is a lethal weapon. This
high-powered firearm was in the hands of an escaping detainee, who had sprung a surprise on his The Necropsy Report[35] also reveals the following:
police escorts bottled inside the jeep. A warning from the policemen would have been pointless and
would have cost them their lives. 1. Gunshot Wound, entrance, 0.5 cm X 1.5 cms in size, located at the left side of
the back of the head. The left parietal bone is fractured. The left temporal bone
For what is the purpose of a warning? A warning is issued when policemen have to identify is also fractured. A wound of exit measuring 2 cms X 3 cms in size is located at
themselves as such and to give opportunity to an offender to surrender. A warning in this case was the left temporal aspect of the head.
dispensable. Valino knew that he was in the custody of policemen. Valino was also very well aware
 2. Gunshot [W]ound, entrance, 0.5 cm in diameter, located at the left side of the Chief Justice
chest about three inches below the left clavicle. The wound is directed medially Chairman
and made an exit wound at the right axilla measuring 2 X 2 cms in size.

3. Gunshot Wound, entrance, 0.5 cm in diameter located at the left lower back
above the left lumbar. The left lung is collapsed and the liver is lacerated.
Particles of lead [were] recovered in the liver tissues. No wound of exit. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Cause of Death:
Cerebral Hemorrhage Secondary To Gunshot Wound In The Head

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
The doctors who testified on the Autopsy[36] and Necropsy[37] Reports admitted that they Associate Justice
could not determine which of the three gunshot wounds was first inflicted. However, we cannot
disregard the significance of the gunshot wound on Valinos chest. Valino could not have been hit on
the chest if he were not at one point facing the policemen.
CERTIFICATION
If the first shot were on the back of Valinos head, Valino would have immediately fallen to
the ground as the bullet from Cabanligs M16 Armalite almost shattered Valinos skull. It would have
been impossible for Valino to still turn and face the policemen in such a way that Cabanlig could still Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
shoot Valino on the chest if the first shot was on the back of Valinos head. the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
The most probable and logical scenario: Valino was somewhat facing the policemen when he
was shot, hence, the entry wound on Valinos chest. On being hit, Valino could have turned to his left
almost falling, when two more bullets felled Valino. The two bullets then hit Valino on his lower left HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
back and on the left side of the back of his head, in what sequence, we could not speculate on. At the Chief Justice
very least, the gunshot wound on Valinos chest should have raised doubt in Cabanligs favor.

Cabanlig is thus not guilty of homicide. At most, Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and
Esteban are guilty only of gross negligence. The policemen transported Valino, an arrested robber, to
a retrieval operation without handcuffing Valino. That no handcuffs were available in the police
precinct is a very flimsy excuse. The policemen should have tightly bound Valinos hands with rope or
some other sturdy material. Valinos cooperative demeanor should not have lulled the policemen to
complacency. As it turned out, Valino was merely keeping up the appearance of good behavior as a
prelude to a planned escape. We therefore recommend the filing of an administrative case against
Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban for gross negligence.

WHEREFORE, we REVERSE the decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 19436
convicting accused RUPERTO CONCEPCION CABANLIGof the crime of homicide. We ACQUIT RUPERTO
CONCEPCION CABANLIG of the crime of homicide and ORDER his immediate release from prison,
unless there are other lawful grounds to hold him. We DIRECT the Director of Prisons to report to this
Court compliance within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

 EN BANC The Court likewise penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as indemnity and another sum of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00), Philippine currency as moral damages.[2]

[G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004] The Information[3] charged appellant with parricide as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay Bilwang, Municipality of Isabel,
Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant.
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound one BEN GENOSA, her legitimate husband,
with the use of a hard deadly weapon, which the accused had provided herself for the purpose,
DECISION [causing] the following wounds, to wit:

PANGANIBAN, J.:
Cadaveric spasm.

Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer for acquittal on a novel theory --
the battered woman syndrome (BWS), which allegedly constitutes self-defense. Under the proven Body on the 2nd stage of decomposition.
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 shot him. Face, black, blownup & swollen w/ evident post-mortem lividity. Eyes protruding from its
sockets and tongue slightly protrudes out of the mouth.
Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant constituted a form of Fracture, open, depressed, circular located at the occipital bone of the head, resulting [in]
cumulative provocation that broke down her psychological resistance and self-control. This laceration of the brain, spontaneous rupture of the blood vessels on the posterior surface
psychological paralysis she suffered diminished her will power, thereby entitling her to the mitigating of the brain, laceration of the dura and meningeal vessels producing severe intracranial
factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. hemorrhage.

In addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating circumstance of having acted
upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. The acute Blisters at both extrem[i]ties, anterior chest, posterior chest, trunk w/ shedding of the epidermis.
battering she suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the fact that she
was eight months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional Abdomen distended w/ gas. Trunk bloated.
and mental state, which overcame her reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn
childs.
which caused his death.[4]
Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances arising from BWS, as well as the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she may now apply for and be released from custody on With the assistance of her counsel,[5] appellant pleaded not guilty during her arraignment on
parole, because she has already served the minimum period of her penalty while under detention March 3, 1997.[6] In due course, she was tried for and convicted of parricide.
during the pendency of this case.

The Facts
The Case

Version of the Prosecution

For automatic review before this Court is the September 25, 1998 Decision[1] of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City (Branch 35) in Criminal Case No. 5016-0, finding Marivic Genosa
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide. The decretal portion of the Decision reads:
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the prosecutions version of the facts in
this wise:
WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered, the Court finds the accused, Marivic
Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide as provided under Article
246 of the Revised Penal Code as restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659, and after finding treachery as a Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19, 1983 in Ormoc City. Thereafter,
generic aggravating circumstance and none of mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences the accused they lived with the parents of Ben in their house at Isabel, Leyte. For a time, Bens younger brother,
with the penalty of DEATH. Alex, and his wife lived with them too. Sometime in 1995, however, appellant and Ben rented from
Steban Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte where they lived with their two children,
namely: John Marben and Earl Pierre.
On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after receiving their salary. They Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going home after work on November 15, 1995,
each had two (2) bottles of beer before heading home. Arturo would pass Bens house before reaching she got worried that her husband who was not home yet might have gone gambling since it was a
his. When they arrived at the house of Ben, he found out that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to payday. With her cousin Ecel Arao, appellant went to look for Ben at the marketplace and taverns at
look for him. Ben went inside his house, while Arturo went to a store across it, waiting until 9:00 in Isabel, Leyte but did not find him there. They found Ben drunk upon their return at the Genosas
the evening for the masiaorunner to place a bet. Arturo did not see appellant arrive but on his way house. Ecel went home despite appellants request for her to sleep in their house.
home passing the side of the Genosas rented house, he heard her say I wont hesitate to kill you to
which Ben replied Why kill me when I am innocent? That was the last time Arturo saw Ben alive.
Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even challenging her to a fight. She
Arturo also noticed that since then, the Genosas rented house appeared uninhabited and was always
allegedly ignored him and instead attended to their children who were doing their homework.
closed.
Apparently disappointed with her reaction, Ben switched off the light and, with the use of a chopping
knife, cut the television antenna or wire to keep her from watching television. According to appellant,
On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close friend and neighbor living about Ben was about to attack her so she ran to the bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled her
fifty (50) meters from her house, to look after her pig because she was going to Cebu for a pregnancy around. She fell on the side of the bed and screamed for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant
check-up. Appellant likewise asked Erlinda to sell her motorcycle to their neighbor Ronnie packed his clothes because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed clothes upon his return home,
Dayandayan who unfortunately had no money to buy it. Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom towards a drawer holding
her by the neck, and told her You might as well be killed so nobody would nag me. Appellant testified
that she was aware that there was a gun inside the drawer but since Ben did not have the key to it,
That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was waiting for a bus going to Ormoc
he got a three-inch long blade cutter from his wallet. She however, smashed the arm of Ben with a
when he saw appellant going out of their house with her two kids in tow, each one carrying a bag,
pipe, causing him to drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant then smashed Ben at his nape with the
locking the gate and taking her children to the waiting area where he was. Joseph lived about fifty
pipe as he was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter ran inside the bedroom.
(50) meters behind the Genosas rented house. Joseph, appellant and her children rode the same bus
to Ormoc. They had no conversation as Joseph noticed that appellant did not want to talk to him.
Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by shooting him. She supposedly
distorted the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben. He did not die on the spot, though, but in the
On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him about the foul odor emanating from
bedroom.[7](Citations omitted)
his house being rented by Ben and appellant. Steban went there to find out the cause of the stench
but the house was locked from the inside. Since he did not have a duplicate key with him, Steban
destroyed the gate padlock with a borrowed steel saw. He was able to get inside through the kitchen
door but only after destroying a window to reach a hook that locked it. Alone, Steban went inside the
Version of the Defense
unlocked bedroom where the offensive smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body of Ben
lying on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his briefs with injuries at the back
of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the house and sent word to the mother of Ben about his
sons misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada Genosa, the mother of Ben, identified the dead body as Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:
that of [her] son.
1. Marivic and Ben Genosa were allegedly married on November 19, 1983. Prior to her marriage,
Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin, then assigned at the police station at Marivic had graduated from San Carlos, Cebu City, obtaining a degree of Bachelor of Science in
Isabel, Leyte, received a report regarding the foul smell at the Genosas rented house. Together with Business Administration, and was working, at the time of her husbands death, as a Secretary to the
SPO1 Millares, SPO1 Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the house and went Port Managers in Ormoc City. The couple had three (3) children: John Marben, Earl Pierre and Marie
inside the bedroom where they found the dead body of Ben lying on his side wrapped with a Bianca.
bedsheet. There was blood at the nape of Ben who only had his briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found in one
corner at the side of an aparador a metal pipe about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning 2. Marivic and Ben had known each other since elementary school; they were neighbors in Bilwang;
against a wall. The metal pipe measured three (3) feet and six (6) inches long with a diameter of one they were classmates; and they were third degree cousins. Both sets of parents were against their
and half (1 1/2) inches. It had an open end without a stop valve with a red stain at one end. The relationship, but Ben was persistent and tried to stop other suitors from courting her. Their closeness
bedroom was not in disarray. developed as he was her constant partner at fiestas.

About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its stench, had to be taken outside 3. After their marriage, they lived first in the home of Bens parents, together with Bens brother,
at the back of the house before the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the Alex, in Isabel, Leyte. In the first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived happily. But apparently,
presence of the police. A municipal health officer at Isabel, Leyte responsible for medico-legal cases, soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and their fights would become violent.
Dr. Cerillo found that Ben had been dead for two to three days and his body was already
decomposing. The postmortem examination of Dr. Cerillo yielded the findings quoted in the
Information for parricide later filed against appellant. She concluded that the cause of Bens death was 4. Bens brother, Alex, testified for the prosecution that he could not remember when Ben and Marivic
cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture of married. He said that when Ben and Marivic quarreled, generally when Ben would come home drunk,
the occipital [bone]. Marivic would inflict injuries on him. He said that in one incident in 1993 he saw Marivic holding a
kitchen knife after Ben had shouted for help as his left hand was covered with blood. Marivic left the
house but after a week, she returned apparently having asked for Bens forgiveness. In another
incident in May 22, 1994, early morning, Alex and his father apparently rushed to Bens aid again and
saw blood from Bens forehead and Marivic holding an empty bottle. Ben and Marivic reconciled after and through the open jalousies, he saw the spouses grappling with each other. Ben had Marivic in a
Marivic had apparently again asked for Bens forgiveness. choke hold. He did not do anything, but had come voluntarily to testify. (Please note this was the
same night as that testified to by Arturo Busabos.[8])
Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivics mother-in-law, testified too, saying that Ben and Marivic married in
1986 or 1985 more or less here in Fatima, Ormoc City. She said as the marriage went along, Marivic 7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a fisherman, and the brother of Mr. Joe Barrientos, testified that he
became already very demanding. Mrs. Iluminada Genosa said that after the birth of Marivics two heard his neighbor Marivic shouting on the night of November 15, 1995. He peeped through the
sons, there were three (3) misunderstandings. The first was when Marivic stabbed Ben with a table window of his hut which is located beside the Genosa house and saw the spouses grappling with each
knife through his left arm; the second incident was on November 15, 1994, when Marivic struck other then Ben Genosa was holding with his both hands the neck of the accused, Marivic Genosa. He
Ben on the forehead using a sharp instrument until the eye was also affected. It was wounded and said after a while, Marivic was able to extricate he[r]self and enter the room of the children. After
also the ear and her husband went to Ben to help; and the third incident was in 1995 when the couple that, he went back to work as he was to go fishing that evening. He returned at 8:00 the next
had already transferred to the house in Bilwang and she saw that Bens hand was plastered as the morning. (Again, please note that this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo Basobas).
bone cracked.
7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former neighbor of the Genosas while they were living in Isabel,
Both mother and son claimed they brought Ben to a Pasar clinic for medical intervention. Leyte. His house was located about fifty (50) meters from theirs. Marivic is his niece and he knew
them to be living together for 13 or 14 years. He said the couple was always quarreling. Marivic
confided in him that Ben would pawn items and then would use the money to gamble. One time, he
5. Arturo Basobas, a co-worker of Ben, testified that on November 15, 1995 After we collected our
went to their house and they were quarreling. Ben was so angry, but would be pacified if somebody
salary, we went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO. They stayed there for three (3) hours, after which
would come. He testified that while Ben was alive he used to gamble and when he became drunk, he
they went to Uniloks and drank beer allegedly only two (2) bottles each. After drinking they bought
would go to our house and he will say, Teody because that was what he used to call me, mokimas ta,
barbeque and went to the Genosa residence. Marivic was not there. He stayed a while talking with
which means lets go and look for a whore. Mr. Sarabia further testified that Ben would box his wife
Ben, after which he went across the road to wait for the runner and the usher of the masiao game
and I would see bruises and one time she ran to me, I noticed a wound (the witness pointed to his
because during that time, the hearing on masiao numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the ushers
right breast) as according to her a knife was stricken to her. Mr. Sarabia also said that once he saw
and runners so that I can place my bet. On his way home at about 9:00 in the evening, he heard the
Ben had been injured too. He said he voluntarily testified only that morning.
Genosas arguing. They were quarreling loudly. Outside their house was one Fredo who is used by Ben
to feed his fighting cocks. Basobas testimony on the root of the quarrel, conveniently overheard by
him was Marivic saying I will never hesitate to kill you, whilst Ben replied Why kill me when I am 7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old student, who is a cousin of Marivic, testified that in the afternoon
innocent. Basobas thought they were joking. of November 15, 1995, Marivic went to her house and asked her help to look for Ben. They searched
in the market place, several taverns and some other places, but could not find him. She accompanied
Marivic home. Marivic wanted her to sleep with her in the Genosa house because she might be
He did not hear them quarreling while he was across the road from the Genosa residence. Basobas
battered by her husband. When they got to the Genosa house at about 7:00 in the evening, Miss
admitted that he and Ben were always at the cockpits every Saturday and Sunday. He claims that he
Arano said that her husband was already there and was drunk. Miss Arano knew he was drunk
once told Ben before when he was stricken with a bottle by Marivic Genosa that he should leave her
because of his staggering walking and I can also detect his face. Marivic entered the house and she
and that Ben would always take her back after she would leave him so many times.
heard them quarrel noisily. (Again, please note that this is the same night as that testified to by
Arturo Basobas) Miss Arano testified that this was not the first time Marivic had asked her to sleep in
Basobas could not remember when Marivic had hit Ben, but it was a long time that they had been the house as Marivic would be afraid every time her husband would come home drunk. At one time
quarreling. He said Ben even had a wound on the right forehead. He had known the couple for only when she did sleep over, she was awakened at 10:00 in the evening when Ben arrived because the
one (1) year. couple were very noisy in the sala and I had heard something was broken like a vase. She said
Marivic ran into her room and they locked the door. When Ben couldnt get in he got a chair and a
6. Marivic testified that after the first year of marriage, Ben became cruel to her and was a habitual knife and showed us the knife through the window grill and he scared us. She said that Marivic
drinker. She said he provoked her, he would slap her, sometimes he would pin her down on the bed, shouted for help, but no one came. On cross-examination, she said that when she left Marivics house
and sometimes beat her. on November 15, 1995, the couple were still quarreling.

These incidents happened several times and she would often run home to her parents, but Ben would 7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician testified that he and Marivic were co-employees at PHILPHOS, Isabel,
follow her and seek her out, promising to change and would ask for her forgiveness. She said after Leyte. Marivic was his patient many times and had also received treatment from other doctors. Dr.
she would be beaten, she would seek medical help from Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. Cerillo. Caing testified that from July 6, 1989 until November 9, 1995, there were six (6) episodes of physical
These doctors would enter the injuries inflicted upon her by Ben into their reports. Marivic said Ben injuries inflicted upon Marivic. These injuries were reported in his Out-Patient Chart at the PHILPHOS
would beat her or quarrel with her every time he was drunk, at least three times a week. Hospital. The prosecution admitted the qualifications of Dr. Caing and considered him an expert
witness.

7. In her defense, witnesses who were not so closely related to Marivic, testified as to the abuse and
violence she received at the hands of Ben. xxxxxxxxx

7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman, who was a [neighbor] of the Genosas, testified that on Dr. Caings clinical history of the tension headache and hypertention of Marivic on twenty-three (23)
November 15, 1995, he overheard a quarrel between Ben and Marivic. Marivic was shouting for help separate occasions was marked at Exhibits 2 and 2-B. The OPD Chart of Marivic at the Philphos Clinic
which reflected all the consultations made by Marivic and the six (6) incidents of physical injuries xxxxxxxxx
reported was marked as Exhibit 3.
Dra. Cerillo said that there is only one injury and that is the injury involving the skeletal area of the
On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that he is not a psychiatrist, he could not say whether the head which she described as a fracture. And that based on her examination, Ben had been dead 2 or
injuries were directly related to the crime committed. He said it is only a psychiatrist who is qualified 3 days. Dra. Cerillo did not testify as to what caused his death.
to examine the psychological make-up of the patient, whether she is capable of committing a crime or
not.
Dra. Cerillo was not cross-examined by defense counsel.

7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay captain in the place where the Genosas resided, testified that
11. The Information, dated November 14, 1996, filed against Marivic Genosa charged her with the
about two (2) months before Ben died, Marivic went to his office past 8:00 in the evening. She sought
crime of PARRICIDE committed with intent to kill, with treachery and evidence premeditation, x x x
his help to settle or confront the Genosa couple who were experiencing family troubles. He told
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound x x x her legitimate husband, with
Marivic to return in the morning, but he did not hear from her again and assumed that they might
the use of a hard deadly weapon x x x which caused his death.
have settled with each other or they might have forgiven with each other.

12. Trial took place on 7 and 14 April 1997, 14 May 1997, 21 July 1997, 17, 22 and 23 September
xxxxxxxxx
1997, 12 November 1997, 15 and 16 December 1997, 22 May 1998, and 5 and 6 August 1998.

Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it was her husband who
13. On 23 September 1998, or only fifty (50) days from the day of the last trial date, the Hon.
began the provocation. Marivic said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she
Fortunito L. Madrona, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City, rendered a JUDGMENT finding
wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, Marivic had to be admitted later at
Marivic guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide, and further found treachery as an
the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was
aggravating circumstance, thus sentencing her to the ultimate penalty of DEATH.
born prematurely on December 1, 1995.

14. The case was elevated to this Honorable Court upon automatic review and, under date of 24
Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five (5) times,
January 2000, Marivics trial lawyer, Atty. Gil Marvel P. Tabucanon, filed a Motion to Withdraw as
but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. Marivic said that the reason why Ben
counsel, attaching thereto, as a precautionary measure, two (2) drafts of Appellants Briefs he had
was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend,
prepared for Marivic which, for reasons of her own, were not conformed to by her.
Lulu x x x Rubillos.

The Honorable Court allowed the withdrawal of Atty. Tabucanon and permitted the entry of
On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she shot Ben with a gun; she said that he died in the
appearance of undersigned counsel.
bedroom; that their quarrels could be heard by anyone passing their house; that Basobas lied in his
testimony; that she left for Manila the next day, November 16, 1995; that she did not bother anyone
in Manila, rented herself a room, and got herself a job as a field researcher under the alias Marvelous 15. Without the knowledge of counsel, Marivic Genosa wrote a letter dated 20 January 2000, to the
Isidro; she did not tell anyone that she was leaving Leyte, she just wanted to have a safe delivery of Chief Justice, coursing the same through Atty. Teresita G. Dimaisip, Deputy Clerk of Court of Chief
her baby; and that she was arrested in San Pablo, Laguna. Judicial Records Office, wherein she submitted her Brief without counsels to the Court.

Answering questions from the Court, Marivic said that she threw the gun away; that she did not know This letter was stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 4 February 2000.
what happened to the pipe she used to smash him once; that she was wounded by Ben on her wrist
with the bolo; and that two (2) hours after she was whirled by Ben, he kicked her ass and dragged 16. In the meantime, under date of 17 February 2000, and stamp-received by the Honorable Court
her towards the drawer when he saw that she had packed his things. on 19 February 2000, undersigned counsel filed an URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION praying that the
Honorable Court allow the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of his
9. The body of Ben Genosa was found on November 18, 1995 after an investigation was made of the death; allow the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to
foul odor emitting from the Genosa residence. This fact was testified to by all the prosecution determine her state of mind at the time she killed her husband; and finally, to allow a partial re-
witnesses and some defense witnesses during the trial. opening of the case a quo to take the testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists.

10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a physician, was the Municipal Health Officer of Isabel, Leyte at the time Attached to the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION was a letter of Dr. Raquel Fortun, then the only qualified
of the incident, and among her responsibilities as such was to take charge of all medico-legal cases, forensic pathologist in the country, who opined that the description of the death wound (as culled
such as the examination of cadavers and the autopsy of cadavers. Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic from the post-mortem findings, Exhibit A) is more akin to a gunshot wound than a beating with a lead
pathologist. She merely took the medical board exams and passed in 1986. She was called by the pipe.
police to go to the Genosa residence and when she got there, she saw some police officer and
neighbor around. She saw Ben Genosa, covered by a blanket, lying in a semi-prone position with his 17. In a RESOLUTION dated 29 September 2000, the Honorable Court partly granted Marivics
back to the door. He was wearing only a brief. URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION and remanded the case to the trial court for the reception of expert
psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered woman syndrome plea, within ninety (90)
days from notice, and, thereafter to forthwith report to this Court the proceedings taken, together Dra. Dayan testified that there are a lot of reasons why a battered woman does not leave her
with the copies of the TSN and relevant documentary evidence, if any, submitted. husband: poverty, self-blame and guilt that she provoked the violence, the cycle itself which makes
her hope her husband will change, the belief in her obligations to keep the family intact at all costs for
the sake of the children.
18. On 15 January 2001, Dra. Natividad A. Dayan appeared and testified before the Hon. Fortunito L.
Madrona, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.
xxxxxxxxx
Immediately before Dra. Dayan was sworn, the Court a quo asked if she had interviewed Marivic
Genosa. Dra. Dayan informed the Court that interviews were done at the Penal Institution in 1999, Dra. Dayan said that abused wives react differently to the violence: some leave the house, or lock
but that the clinical interviews and psychological assessment were done at her clinic. themselves in another room, or sometimes try to fight back triggering physical violence on both of
them. She said that in a normal marital relationship, abuses also happen, but these are not
consistent, not chronic, are not happening day in [and] day out. In an abnormal marital relationship,
Dra. Dayan testified that she has been a clinical psychologist for twenty (20) years with her own
the abuse occurs day in and day out, is long lasting and even would cause hospitalization on the
private clinic and connected presently to the De La Salle University as a professor. Before this, she
victim and even death on the victim.
was the Head of the Psychology Department of the Assumption College; a member of the faculty of
Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila University and St. Josephs College; and was the counseling
psychologist of the National Defense College. She has an AB in Psychology from the University of the xxxxxxxxx
Philippines, a Master of Arts in Clinical [Counseling], Psychology from the Ateneo, and a PhD from the
U.P. She was the past president of the Psychological Association of the Philippines and is a member of
Dra. Dayan said that as a result of the battery of psychological tests she administered, it was her
the American Psychological Association. She is the secretary of the International Council of
opinion that Marivic fits the profile of a battered woman because inspite of her feeling of self-
Psychologists from about 68 countries; a member of the Forensic Psychology Association; and a
confidence which we can see at times there are really feeling (sic) of loss, such feelings of humiliation
member of the ASEAN [Counseling] Association. She is actively involved with the Philippine Judicial
which she sees herself as damaged and as a broken person. And at the same time she still has the
Academy, recently lecturing on the socio-demographic and psychological profile of families involved in
imprint of all the abuses that she had experienced in the past.
domestic violence and nullity cases. She was with the Davide Commission doing research about
Military Psychology. She has written a book entitled Energy Global Psychology (together with Drs.
Allan Tan and Allan Bernardo). The Genosa case is the first time she has testified as an expert on xxxxxxxxx
battered women as this is the first case of that nature.
Dra. Dayan said Marivic thought of herself as a loving wife and did not even consider filing for nullity
Dra. Dayan testified that for the research she conducted, on the socio-demographic and psychological or legal separation inspite of the abuses. It was at the time of the tragedy that Marivic then thought
profile of families involved in domestic violence, and nullity cases, she looked at about 500 cases over of herself as a victim.
a period of ten (10) years and discovered that there are lots of variables that cause all of this marital
conflicts, from domestic violence to infidelity, to psychiatric disorder. xxxxxxxxx

Dra. Dayan described domestic violence to comprise of a lot of incidents of psychological abuse, 19. On 9 February 2001, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, a physician, who has since passed away, appeared and
verbal abuse, and emotional abuse to physical abuse and also sexual abuse. testified before RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.

xxxxxxxxx Dr. Pajarillo was a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry; a Fellow of the Philippine Board of
Psychiatry and a Fellow of the Philippine Psychiatry Association. He was in the practice of psychiatry
Dra. Dayan testified that in her studies, the battered woman usually has a very low opinion of herself. for thirty-eight (38) years. Prior to being in private practice, he was connected with the Veterans
She has a self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x they usually think very lowly of Memorial Medical Centre where he gained his training on psychiatry and neurology. After that, he was
themselves and so when the violence would happen, they usually think that they provoke it, that they called to active duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, assigned to the V. Luna Medical Center for
were the one who precipitated the violence, they provoke their spouse to be physically, verbally and twenty six (26) years. Prior to his retirement from government service, he obtained the rank of
even sexually abusive to them. Dra. Dayan said that usually a battered x x x comes from a Brigadier General. He obtained his medical degree from the University of Santo Tomas. He was also a
dysfunctional family or from broken homes. member of the World Association of Military Surgeons; the Quezon City Medical Society; the Cagayan
Medical Society; and the Philippine Association of Military Surgeons.
Dra. Dayan said that the batterer, just like the battered woman, also has a very low opinion of
himself. But then emerges to have superiority complex and it comes out as being very arrogant, very He authored The Comparative Analysis of Nervous Breakdown in the Philippine Military Academy from
hostile, very aggressive and very angry. They also had (sic) a very low tolerance for frustrations. A lot the Period 1954 1978 which was presented twice in international congresses. He also authored The
of times they are involved in vices like gambling, drinking and drugs. And they become violent. The Mental Health of the Armed Forces of the Philippines 2000, which was likewise published
batterer also usually comes from a dysfunctional family which over-pampers them and makes them internationally and locally. He had a medical textbook published on the use of Prasepam on a Parke-
feel entitled to do anything. Also, they see often how their parents abused each other so there is a lot Davis grant; was the first to use Enanthate (siquiline), on an E.R. Squibb grant; and he published the
of modeling of aggression in the family. use of the drug Zopiclom in 1985-86.
Dr. Pajarillo explained that psychiatry deals with the functional disorder of the mind and neurology surrounding or in a hospital x x x because that abound in the household. He said a victim resorts to
deals with the ailment of the brain and spinal cord enlarged. Psychology, on the other hand, is a weapons when she has reached the lowest rock bottom of her life and there is no other recourse left
bachelor degree and a doctorate degree; while one has to finish medicine to become a specialist in on her but to act decisively.
psychiatry.
xxxxxxxxx
Even only in his 7th year as a resident in V. Luna Medical Centre, Dr. Pajarillo had already
encountered a suit involving violent family relations, and testified in a case in 1964. In the Armed
Dr. Pajarillo testified that he met Marivic Genosa in his office in an interview he conducted for two (2)
Forces of the Philippines, violent family disputes abound, and he has seen probably ten to twenty
hours and seventeen (17) minutes. He used the psychological evaluation and social case studies as a
thousand cases. In those days, the primordial intention of therapy was reconciliation. As a result of
help in forming his diagnosis. He came out with a Psychiatric Report, dated 22 January 2001.
his experience with domestic violence cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office in
Quezon City under Atty. Nenita Deproza.
xxxxxxxxx
As such consultant, he had seen around forty (40) cases of severe domestic violence, where there is
physical abuse: such as slapping, pushing, verbal abuse, battering and boxing a woman even to an On cross-examination by the private prosecutor, Dr. Pajarillo said that at the time she killed her
unconscious state such that the woman is sometimes confined. The affliction of Post-Traumatic Stress husband Marivicc mental condition was that she was re-experiencing the trauma. He said that we are
Disorder depends on the vulnerability of the victim. Dr. Pajarillo said that if the victim is not very trying to explain scientifically that the re-experiencing of the trauma is not controlled by Marivic. It
healthy, perhaps one episode of violence may induce the disorder; if the psychological stamina and will just come in flashes and probably at that point in time that things happened when the re-
physiologic constitutional stamina of the victim is stronger, it will take more repetitive trauma to experiencing of the trauma flashed in her mind. At the time he interviewed Marivic she was more
precipitate the post-traumatic stress disorder and this x x x is very dangerous. subdued, she was not super alert anymore x x x she is mentally stress (sic) because of the
predicament she is involved.
In psychiatry, the post-traumatic stress disorder is incorporated under the anxiety neurosis or
neurologic anxcietism. It is produced by overwhelming brutality, trauma. xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx 20. No rebuttal evidence or testimony was presented by either the private or the public prosecutor.
Thus, in accord with the Resolution of this Honorable Court, the records of the partially re-opened trial
a quo were elevated.[9]
Dr. Pajarillo explained that with neurotic anxiety, the victim relives the beating or trauma as if it were
real, although she is not actually being beaten at that time. She thinks of nothing but the suffering.

xxxxxxxxx Ruling of the Trial Court

A woman who suffers battery has a tendency to become neurotic, her emotional tone is unstable,
and she is irritable and restless. She tends to become hard-headed and persistent. She has higher Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave credence to the
sensitivity and her self-world is damaged. prosecution evidence that appellant had killed the deceased while he was in bed sleeping. Further, the
trial court appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery, because Ben Genosa was
supposedly defenseless when he was killed -- lying in bed asleep when Marivic smashed him with a
Dr. Pajarillo said that an abnormal family background relates to an individuals illness, such as the pipe at the back of his head.
deprivation of the continuous care and love of the parents. As to the batterer, he normally internalizes
what is around him within the environment. And it becomes his own personality. He is very The capital penalty having been imposed, the case was elevated to this Court for automatic
competitive; he is aiming high all the time; he is so macho; he shows his strong faade but in it there review.
are doubts in himself and prone to act without thinking.

xxxxxxxxx
Supervening Circumstances

Dr. Pajarillo emphasized that even though without the presence of the precipator (sic) or the one who
administered the battering, that re-experiencing of the trauma occurred (sic) because the individual On February 19, 2000, appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion praying that this Court allow
cannot control it. It will just come up in her mind or in his mind. (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the reexamination of the cause of his death; (2) the
examination of appellant by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at
xxxxxxxxx the time she had killed her spouse; and (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 reopening of the case for
the lower court to admit the experts testimonies.
Dr. Pajarillo said that a woman suffering post traumatic stress disorder try to defend themselves, and
primarily with knives. Usually pointed weapons or any weapon that is available in the immediate
 On September 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution granting in part appellants Motion, The appeal is partly meritorious.
remanding the case to the trial court for the reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric
opinion on the battered woman syndrome plea; and requiring the lower court to report thereafter to
this Court the proceedings taken as well as to submit copies of the TSN and additional evidence, if
any. Collateral Factual Issues

Acting on the Courts Resolution, the trial judge authorized the examination of Marivic by two
clinical psychologists, Drs. Natividad Dayan[10] and Alfredo Pajarillo,[11] supposedly experts on
The first six assigned errors raised by appellant are factual in nature, if not collateral to the
domestic violence. Their testimonies, along with their documentary evidence, were then presented to
resolution of the principal issues. As consistently held by this Court, the findings of the trial court on
and admitted by the lower court before finally being submitted to this Court to form part of the
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to a high degree of respect and will not
records of the case.[12]
be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial judge gravely abused his
discretion or overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied material facts or circumstances of weight and
substance that could affect the outcome of the case.[14]
The Issues In appellants first six assigned items, we find no grave abuse of discretion, reversible error or
misappreciation of material facts that would reverse or modify the trial courts disposition of the case.
In any event, we will now briefly dispose of these alleged errors of the trial court.
Appellant assigns the following alleged errors of the trial court for this Courts consideration:
First, we do not agree that the lower court promulgated an obviously hasty decision without
reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense. We note that in his 17-page Decision, Judge
1. The trial court gravely erred in promulgating an obviously hasty decision without reflecting on the Fortunito L. Madrona summarized the testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense witnesses
evidence adduced as to self-defense. and -- on the basis of those and of the documentary evidence on record -- made his evaluation,
findings and conclusions. He wrote a 3-page discourse assessing the testimony and the self-defense
2. The trial court gravely erred in finding as a fact that Ben and Marivic Genosa were legally married theory of the accused. While she, or even this Court, may not agree with the trial judges conclusions,
and that she was therefore liable for parricide. we cannot peremptorily conclude, absent substantial evidence, that he failed to reflect on the
evidence presented.
3. The trial court gravely erred finding the cause of death to be by beating with a pipe. Neither do we find the appealed Decision to have been made in an obviously hasty manner. The
Information had been filed with the lower court on November 14, 1996. Thereafter, trial began and at
4. The trial court gravely erred in ignoring and disregarding evidence adduced from impartial and least 13 hearings were held for over a year. It took the trial judge about two months from the
unbiased witnesses that Ben Genosa was a drunk, a gambler, a womanizer and wife-beater; and conclusion of trial to promulgate his judgment. That he conducted the trial and resolved the case with
further gravely erred in concluding that Ben Genosa was a battered husband. dispatch should not be taken against him, much less used to condemn him for being unduly hasty. If
at all, the dispatch with which he handled the case should be lauded. In any case, we find his actions
in substantial compliance with his constitutional obligation.[15]
5. The trial court gravely erred in not requiring testimony from the children of Marivic Genosa.
Second, the lower court did not err in finding as a fact that Ben Genosa and appellant had been
6. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that Marivics flight to Manila and her subsequent legally married, despite the non-presentation of their marriage contract. In People v. Malabago,[16]this
apologies were indicia of guilt, instead of a clear attempt to save the life of her unborn child. Court held:

The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of parricide
7. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that there was an aggravating circumstance of
treachery. of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage
certificate. In the absence of a marriage certificate, however, oral evidence of the fact of marriage
may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected to.
8. The trial court gravely erred in refusing to re-evaluate the traditional elements in determining the
existence of self-defense and defense of foetus in this case, thereby erroneously convicting Marivic
Genosa of the crime of parricide and condemning her to the ultimate penalty of death. [13] Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the brother of appellants deceased
spouse -- attested in court that Ben had been married to Marivic.[17] The defense raised no objection
to these testimonies. Moreover, during her direct examination, appellant herself made a judicial
In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1) whether appellant acted in self- admission of her marriage to Ben.[18] Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon
defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2) whether treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa. the party making it, except only when there is a showing that (1) the admission was made through a
palpable mistake, or (2) no admission was in fact made.[19] Other than merely attacking the non-
presentation of the marriage contract, the defense offered no proof that the admission made by
appellant in court as to the fact of her marriage to the deceased was made through a palpable
The Courts Ruling mistake.
 Third, under the circumstances of this case, the specific or direct cause of Bens death -- whether with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a
by a gunshot or by beating with a pipe -- has no legal consequence. As the Court elucidated in its battered woman.[25]
September 29, 2000 Resolution, [c]onsidering that the appellant has admitted the fact of killing her
husband and the acts of hitting his nape with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the back of his Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-esteem, traditional beliefs
head, the Court believes that exhumation is unnecessary, if not immaterial, to determine which of about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male;
said acts actually caused the victims death. Determining which of these admitted acts caused the the tendency to accept responsibility for the batterers actions; and false hopes that the relationship
death is not dispositive of the guilt or defense of appellant. will improve.[26]

Fourth, we cannot fault the trial court for not fully appreciating evidence that Ben was a drunk, More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of
gambler, womanizer and wife-beater. Until this case came to us for automatic review, appellant had not violence,[27] which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident;
raised the novel defense of battered woman syndrome, for which such evidence may have been relevant. and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.[28]
Her theory of self-defense was then the crucial issue before the trial court. As will be discussed shortly, the
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be verbal or slight
legal requisites of self-defense under prevailing jurisprudence ostensibly appear inconsistent with the
physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer
surrounding facts that led to the death of the victim. Hence, his personal character, especially his past
through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What actually
behavior, did not constitute vital evidence at the time.
happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor. All she
Fifth, the trial court surely committed no error in not requiring testimony from appellants wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however,
children. As correctly elucidated by the solicitor general, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the proves to be double-edged, because her placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he
direction and control of the public prosecutor, in whom lies the discretion to determine which has the right to abuse her in the first place.
witnesses and evidence are necessary to present.[20] As the former further points out, neither the trial
However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate him are not usually
court nor the prosecution prevented appellant from presenting her children as witnesses. Thus, she
successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of
cannot now fault the lower court for not requiring them to testify.
control and the growing tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered
Finally, merely collateral or corroborative is the matter of whether the flight of Marivic to Manila woman soon withdraws emotionally. But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more the
and her subsequent apologies to her brother-in-law are indicia of her guilt or are attempts to save the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence
life of her unborn child. Any reversible error as to the trial courts appreciation of these circumstances spirals out of control and leads to an acute battering incident.[29]
has little bearing on the final resolution of the case.
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.
First Legal Issue: During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature
Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus 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.
Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability, invokes self-defense and/or
defense of her unborn child. When the accused admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she
prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.[21] Well-settled is the rule may later clearly remember every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be
that in criminal cases, self-defense (and similarly, defense of a stranger or third person) shifts the rationalized thus: the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her
burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.[22] 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.[30]

The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During
The Battered Woman Syndrome 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
In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the battered woman syndrome. other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen
While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the concept has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a again; that her partner will change for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the
form of self-defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense.[23] By appreciating evidence that a real person whom she loves.
victim or defendant is afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts convey their understanding of the
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of the
justifiably fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and controlled over a
batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels responsible for his well-being. The truth, though,
period of time.[24]
is that the chances of his reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help, are very slim,
A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful especially if she remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek professional help
physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to as a way of getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is most
do without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate thoroughly tormented psychologically.
relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must
The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a battered womans psyche. In this
go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship
phase, she and her batterer are indeed emotionally dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant
behavior, he for her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of tension, violence and Q You mean Ben Genosa?
forgiveness, each partner may believe that it is better to die than to be separated. Neither one may
really feel independent, capable of functioning without the other.[31] A Yes, sir.

History of Abuse xxxxxxxxx

in the Present Case
[Court] /to the witness
To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the defense presented several Q How frequent was the alleged cruelty that you said?
witnesses. She herself described her heart-rending experience as follows:
A Everytime he got drunk.
ATTY. TABUCANON
Q No, from the time that you said the cruelty or the infliction of injury inflicted on your
Q How did you describe your marriage with Ben Genosa? occurred, after your marriage, from that time on, how frequent was the occurrence?
A In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the subsequent year he was cruel to me A Everytime he got drunk.
and a behavior of habitual drinker.
Q Is it daily, weekly, monthly or how many times in a month or in a week?
Q You said that in the subsequent year of your marriage, your husband was abusive to you
and cruel. In what way was this abusive and cruelty manifested to you? A Three times a week.

A He always provoke me in everything, he always slap me and sometimes he pinned me Q Do you mean three times a week he would beat you?
down on the bed and sometimes beat me.
A Not necessarily that he would beat me but sometimes he will just quarrel me. [32]
Q How many times did this happen?
Referring to his Out-Patient Chart[33] on Marivic Genosa at the Philphos Hospital, Dr. Dino D.
A Several times already. Caing bolstered her foregoing testimony on chronic battery in this manner:

Q What did you do when these things happen to you? Q So, do you have a summary of those six (6) incidents which are found in the chart of
your clinic?
A I went away to my mother and I ran to my father and we separate each other.
A Yes, sir.
Q What was the action of Ben Genosa towards you leaving home?
Q Who prepared the list of six (6) incidents, Doctor?
A He is following me, after that he sought after me.
A I did.
Q What will happen when he follow you?
Q Will you please read the physical findings together with the dates for the record.
A He said he changed, he asked for forgiveness and I was convinced and after that I go to
him and he said sorry. A 1. May 12, 1990 - physical findings are as follows: Hematoma (R) lower eyelid and
redness of eye. Attending physician: Dr. Lucero;
Q During those times that you were the recipient of such cruelty and abusive behavior by
your husband, were you able to see a doctor? 2. March 10, 1992 - Contusion-Hematoma (L) lower arbital area, pain and contusion
(R) breast. Attending physician: Dr. Canora;
A Yes, sir.
3. March 26, 1993 - Abrasion, Furuncle (L) Axilla;
Q Who are these doctors?
4. August 1, 1994 - Pain, mastitis (L) breast, 2o to trauma. Attending physician: Dr.
A The company physician, Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. Cerillo. Caing;

5. April 17, 1995 - Trauma, tenderness (R) Shoulder. Attending physician: Dr.
xxxxxxxxx
Canora; and

Q You said that you saw a doctor in relation to your injuries? 6. June 5, 1995 - Swelling Abrasion (L) leg, multiple contusion Pregnancy. Attending
physician: Dr. Canora.
A Yes, sir.
Q Among the findings, there were two (2) incidents wherein you were the attending
Q Who inflicted these injuries? physician, is that correct?
A Of course my husband. A Yes, sir.
Q Did you actually physical examine the accused? Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of pregnancy was she?

A Yes, sir. A Eight (8) months pregnant.

Q Now, going to your finding no. 3 where you were the one who attended the patient. Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy?
What do you mean by abrasion furuncle left axilla?
A Yes, sir.
A Abrasion is a skin wound usually when it comes in contact with something rough
substance if force is applied. Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an examination about her
pregnancy or for some other findings?
Q What is meant by furuncle axilla?
A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which complicates her pregnancy.
A It is secondary of the light infection over the abrasion.
Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined?
Q What is meant by pain mastitis secondary to trauma?
A Yes, sir.
A So, in this 4th episode of physical injuries there is an inflammation of left breast. So,
[pain] meaning there is tenderness. When your breast is traumatized, there is Q For how many days?
tenderness pain.
A One day.
Q So, these are objective physical injuries. Doctor?
Q Where?

xxxxxxxxx A At PHILPHOS Hospital.

Q Were you able to talk with the patient? xxxxxxxxx

A Yes, sir.
Q Lets go back to the clinical history of Marivic Genosa. You said that you were able to
Q What did she tell you? examine her personally on November 6, 1995 and she was 8 months pregnant.

A As a doctor-patient relationship, we need to know the cause of these injuries. And she What is this all about?
told me that it was done to her by her husband.
A Because she has this problem of tension headache secondary to hypertension and I think
Q You mean, Ben Genosa? I have a record here, also the same period from 1989 to 1995, she had a consultation
for twenty-three (23) times.
A Yes, sir.
Q For what?

xxxxxxxxx A Tension headache.

Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that the patient had
ATTY. TABUCANON: hypertension?
Q By the way Doctor, were you able to physical examine the accused sometime in the A The patient definitely had hypertension. It was refractory to our treatment. She does not
month of November, 1995 when this incident happened? response when the medication was given to her, because tension headache is more or
A As per record, yes. less stress related and emotional in nature.

Q What was the date? Q What did you deduce of tension headache when you said is emotional in nature?

A It was on November 6, 1995. A From what I deduced as part of our physical examination of the patient is the family
history in line of giving the root cause of what is causing this disease. So, from the
Q So, did you actually see the accused physically? moment you ask to the patient all comes from the domestic problem.

A Yes, sir. Q You mean problem in her household?

Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable Court, was the patient A Probably.
pregnant?
Q Can family trouble cause elevation of blood pressure, Doctor?
A Yes, sir.
 A Yes, if it is emotionally related and stressful it can cause increases in hypertension which Q Did you come back to your house?
is unfortunately does not response to the medication.
A Yes, sir.
Q In November 6, 1995, the date of the incident, did you take the blood pressure of the
accused? Q By the way, where was your conjugal residence situated this time?

A On November 6, 1995 consultation, the blood pressure was 180/120. A Bilwang.

Q Is this considered hypertension? Q Is this your house or you are renting?

A Yes, sir, severe. A Renting.

Q Considering that she was 8 months pregnant, you mean this is dangerous level of blood Q What time were you able to come back in your residence at Bilwang?
pressure?
A I went back around almost 8:00 oclock.
A It was dangerous to the child or to the fetus. [34]
Q What happened when you arrived in your residence?
Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of the Genosas in Isabel, Leyte,
A When I arrived home with my cousin Ecel whom I requested to sleep with me at that
testified that he had seen the couple quarreling several times; and that on some occasions Marivic
time because I had fears that he was again drunk and I was worried that he would
would run to him with bruises, confiding that the injuries were inflicted upon her by Ben.[35]
again beat me so I requested my cousin to sleep with me, but she resisted because
Ecel Arano also testified[36] that for a number of times she had been asked by Marivic to sleep at she had fears that the same thing will happen again last year.
the Genosa house, because the latter feared that Ben would come home drunk and hurt her. On one
Q Who was this cousin of yours who you requested to sleep with you?
occasion that Ecel did sleep over, she was awakened about ten oclock at night, because the couple
were very noisy and I heard something was broken like a vase. Then Marivic came running into Ecels A Ecel Arao, the one who testified.
room and locked the door. Ben showed up by the window grill atop a chair, scaring them with a knife.
Q Did Ecel sleep with you in your house on that evening?
On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again asked her help -- this time to find Ben --
but they were unable to. They returned to the Genosa home, where they found him already drunk. A No, because she expressed fears, she said her father would not allow her because of
Again afraid that he might hurt her, Marivic asked her to sleep at their house. Seeing his state of Ben.
drunkenness, Ecel hesitated; and when she heard the couple start arguing, she decided to leave.
Q During this period November 15, 1995, were you pregnant?
On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben Genosa, at least three other witnesses
saw or heard the couple quarreling.[37] Marivic relates in detail the following backdrop of the fateful A Yes, 8 months.
night when life was snuffed out of him, showing in the process a vivid picture of his cruelty towards
Q How advance was your pregnancy?
her:
A Eight (8) months.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q Was the baby subsequently born?
Q Please tell this Court, can you recall the incident in November 15, 1995 in the evening?
A Yes, sir.
A Whole morning and in the afternoon, I was in the office working then after office hours, I
boarded the service bus and went to Bilwang. When I reached Bilwang, I immediately Q Whats the name of the baby you were carrying at that time?
asked my son, where was his father, then my second child said, he was not home yet.
I was worried because that was payday, I was anticipating that he was gambling. So A Marie Bianca.
while waiting for him, my eldest son arrived from school, I prepared dinner for my
children. Q What time were you able to meet personally your husband?

Q This is evening of November 15, 1995? A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir. Q What time?

Q What time did Ben Genosa arrive? A When I arrived home, he was there already in his usual behavior.

A When he arrived, I was not there, I was in Isabel looking for him. Q Will you tell this Court what was his disposition?

Q So when he arrived you were in Isabel looking for him? A He was drunk again, he was yelling in his usual unruly behavior.

A Yes, sir. Q What was he yelling all about?

A His usual attitude when he got drunk.

Q You said that when you arrived, he was drunk and yelling at you? What else did he do if A I wanted him to leave us.
any?
Q During this time, where were your children, what were their reactions?
A He is nagging at me for following him and he dared me to quarrel him.
A After a couple of hours, he went back again and he got angry with me for packing his
Q What was the cause of his nagging or quarreling at you if you know? clothes, then he dragged me again of the bedroom holding my neck.

A He was angry at me because I was following x x x him, looking for him. I was just Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged you? How did he drag
worried he might be overly drunk and he would beat me again. you?

Q You said that he was yelling at you, what else, did he do to you if any? COURT INTERPRETER:

A He was nagging at me at that time and I just ignore him because I want to avoid trouble The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed forcibly in her front
for fear that he will beat me again. Perhaps he was disappointed because I just ignore neck)
him of his provocation and he switch off the light and I said to him, why did you
switch off the light when the children were there. At that time I was also attending to A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
my children who were doing their assignments. He was angry with me for not
ATTY. TABUCANON:
answering his challenge, so he went to the kitchen and [got] a bolo and cut the
antenna wire to stop me from watching television. Q Where did he bring you?
Q What did he do with the bolo? A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he kept on shouting at
me that you might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag me.
A He cut the antenna wire to keep me from watching T.V.
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
Q What else happened after he cut the wire?
A Yes, sir.
A He switch off the light and the children were shouting because they were scared and he
was already holding the bolo. Q What is there in the drawer?
Q How do you described this bolo? A I was aware that it was a gun.
A 1 1/2 feet. COURT INTERPRETER:
Q What was the bolo used for usually? (At this juncture the witness started crying).
A For chopping meat. ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q You said the children were scared, what else happened as Ben was carrying that bolo? Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
A He was about to attack me so I run to the room. A Yes, sir.
Q What do you mean that he was about to attack you? Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
A When I attempt to run he held my hands and he whirled me and I fell to the bedside. A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the drawer but he could
not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled his wallet which contained
Q So when he whirled you, what happened to you?
a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill me and I
A I screamed for help and then he left. smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade fell. The one he used to open the
drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long, and when he was about to pick-up the
Q You said earlier that he whirled you and you fell on the bedside? wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room, and on that very
moment everything on my mind was to pity on myself, then the feeling I had on that
A Yes, sir. very moment was the same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to
vomit.
Q You screamed for help and he left, do you know where he was going?
COURT INTERPRETER:
A Outside perhaps to drink more.
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
Q When he left what did you do in that particular time?

A I packed all his clothes. xxxxxxxxx

Q What was your reason in packing his clothes?
 ATTY. TABUCANON: Q In your first encounter with the appellant in this case in 1999, where you talked to her
about three hours, what was the most relevant information did you gather?
Q Talking of drawer, is this drawer outside your room?
A The most relevant information was the tragedy that happened. The most important
A Outside. information were escalating abuses that she had experienced during her marital life.
Q In what part of the house? Q Before you met her in 1999 for three hours, we presume that you already knew of the
facts of the case or at least you have substantial knowledge of the facts of the case?
A Dining.
A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not know whether I can consider them as
Q Where were the children during that time?
substantial.
A My children were already asleep.
xxxxxxxxx
Q You mean they were inside the room?

A Yes, sir. Q Did you gather an information from Marivic that on the side of her husband they were
fond of battering their wives?
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please describe this blade
about 3 inches long, how does it look like? A I also heard that from her?
A Three (3) inches long and 1/2 inch wide. Q You heard that from her?
Q Is it a flexible blade? A Yes, sir.
A Its a cutter. Q Did you ask for a complete example who are the relatives of her husband that were fond
of battering their wives?
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
A What I remember that there were brothers of her husband who are also battering their
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
wives.
Q How did he do it?
Q Did she not inform you that there was an instance that she stayed in a hotel in Ormoc
A He wanted to cut my throat. where her husband followed her and battered [her] several times in that room?

Q With the same blade? A She told me about that.

A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me. [38] Q Did she inform you in what hotel in Ormoc?

In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to testify as an expert witness to assist A Sir, I could not remember but I was told that she was battered in that room.
it in understanding the psyche of a battered person. She had met with Marivic Genosa for five
Q Several times in that room?
sessions totaling about seventeen hours. Based on their talks, the former briefly related the latters
ordeal to the court a quo as follows: A Yes, sir. What I remember was that there is no problem about being battered, it really
happened.
Q: What can you say, that you found Marivic as a battered wife? Could you in laymans
term describe to this Court what her life was like as said to you? Q Being an expert witness, our jurisprudence is not complete on saying this matter. I think
that is the first time that we have this in the Philippines, what is your opinion?
A: What I remember happened then was it was more than ten years, that she was
suffering emotional anguish. There were a lot of instances of abuses, to emotional A Sir, my opinion is, she is really a battered wife and in this kind happened, it was really a
abuse, to verbal abuse and to physical abuse. The husband had a very meager self-defense. I also believe that there had been provocation and I also believe that
income, she was the one who was practically the bread earner of the family. The she became a disordered person. She had to suffer anxiety reaction because of all the
husband was involved in a lot of vices, going out with barkadas, drinking, even battering that happened and so she became an abnormal person who had lost shes
womanizing being involved in cockfight and going home very angry and which will not during the time and that is why it happened because of all the physical battering,
trigger a lot of physical abuse. She also had the experience a lot of taunting from the emotional battering, all the psychological abuses that she had experienced from her
husband for the reason that the husband even accused her of infidelity, the husband husband.
was saying that the child she was carrying was not his own. So she was very angry,
she was at the same time very depressed because she was also aware, almost like Q I do believe that she is a battered wife. Was she extremely battered?
living in purgatory or even hell when it was happening day in and day out. [39]
A Sir, it is an extreme form of battering. Yes.[40]
In cross-examining Dra. Dayan, the public prosecutor not merely elicited, but wittingly or
unwittingly put forward, additional supporting evidence as shown below: Parenthetically, the credibility of appellant was demonstrated as follows:
 Q And you also said that you administered [the] objective personality test, what x x x [is To understand the syndrome properly, however, ones viewpoint should not be drawn from that
this] all about? of an ordinary, reasonable person. What goes on in the mind of a person who has been subjected to
repeated, severe beatings may not be consistent with -- nay, comprehensible to -- those who have
A The objective personality test is the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. The purpose of not been through a similar experience. Expert opinion is essential to clarify and refute common myths
that test is to find out about the lying prone[ne]ss of the person. and misconceptions about battered women.[45]
Q What do you mean by that? The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her research on domestic violence,
has had a significant impact in the United States and the United Kingdom on the treatment and
A Meaning, am I dealing with a client who is telling me the truth, or is she someone who
prosecution of cases, in which a battered woman is charged with the killing of her violent partner. The
can exaggerate or x x x [will] tell a lie[?]
psychologist explains that the cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon the battered woman
Q And what did you discover on the basis of this objective personality test? immobilizes the latters ability to act decisively in her own interests, making her feel trapped in the
relationship with no means of escape.[46] In her years of research, Dr. Walker found that the abuse
A She was a person who passed the honesty test. Meaning she is a person that I can trust. often escalates at the point of separation and battered women are in greater danger of dying then. [47]
That the data that Im gathering from her are the truth.[41]
Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that the battered woman usually has a
The other expert witness presented by the defense, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, testified on his very low opinion of herself. She has x x x self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x
Psychiatric Report,[42] which was based on his interview and examination of Marivic Genosa. The [W]hen the violence would happen, they usually think that they provoke[d] it, that they were the
Report said that during the first three years of her marriage to Ben, everything looked good -- the one[s] who precipitated the violence[; that] they provoke[d] their spouse to be physically, verbally
atmosphere was fine, normal and happy -- until Ben started to be attracted to other girls and was and even sexually abusive to them.[48]
also enticed in[to] gambling[,] especially cockfighting. x x x. At the same time Ben was often joining
his barkada in drinking sprees. According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a battered woman does not readily
leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self-blame and guilt arising from the latters belief that she
The drinking sprees of Ben greatly changed the attitude he showed toward his family, provoked the violence, that she has an obligation to keep the family intact at all cost for the sake of
particularly to his wife. The Report continued: At first, it was verbal and emotional abuses but as time their children, and that she is the only hope for her spouse to change.[49]
passed, he became physically abusive. Marivic claimed that the viciousness of her husband was
progressive every time he got drunk. It was a painful ordeal Marivic had to anticipate whenever she The testimony of another expert witness, Dr. Pajarillo, is also helpful. He had previously testified
suspected that her husband went for a drinking [spree]. They had been married for twelve years[;] in suits involving violent family relations, having evaluated probably ten to twenty thousand violent
and practically more than eight years, she was battered and maltreated relentlessly and mercilessly family disputes within the Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein such cases abounded. As a result
by her husband whenever he was drunk. of his experience with domestic violence cases, he became a consultant of the Battered Woman Office
in Quezon City. As such, he got involved in about forty (40) cases of severe domestic violence, in
Marivic sought the help of her mother-in-law, but her efforts were in vain. Further quoting from which the physical abuse on the woman would sometimes even lead to her loss of consciousness.[50]
the Report, [s]he also sought the advice and help of close relatives and well-meaning friends in spite
of her feeling ashamed of what was happening to her. But incessant battering became more and more Dr. Pajarillo explained that overwhelming brutality, trauma could result in posttraumatic stress
frequent and more severe. x x x.[43] disorder, a form of anxiety neurosis or neurologic anxietism.[51] After being repeatedly and severely
abused, battered persons may believe that they are essentially helpless, lacking power to change
From the totality of evidence presented, there is indeed no doubt in the Courts mind that their situation. x x x [A]cute battering incidents can have the effect of stimulating the development of
Appellant Marivic Genosa was a severely abused person. coping responses to the trauma at the expense of the victims ability to muster an active response to
try to escape further trauma. Furthermore, x x x the victim ceases to believe that anything she can
do will have a predictable positive effect.[52]

Effect of Battery on Appellant A study[53] conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania,
found that even if a person has control over a situation, but believes that she does not, she will be
more likely to respond to that situation with coping responses rather than trying to escape. He said
Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused woman, her state of mind that it was the cognitive aspect -- the individuals thoughts -- that proved all-important. He referred to
metamorphoses. In determining her state of mind, we cannot rely merely on the judgment of an this phenomenon as learned helplessness. [T]he truth or facts of a situation turn out to be less
ordinary, reasonable person who is evaluating the events immediately surrounding the incident. A important than the individuals set of beliefs or perceptions concerning the situation. Battered women
Canadian court has aptly pointed out that expert evidence on the psychological effect of battering on dont attempt to leave the battering situation, even when it may seem to outsiders that escape is
wives and common law partners are both relevant and necessary. How can the mental state of the possible, because they cannot predict their own safety; they believe that nothing they or anyone else
appellant be appreciated without it? The average member of the public may ask: Why would a woman does will alter their terrible circumstances.[54]
put up with this kind of treatment? Why should she continue to live with such a man? How could she Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow responsible for the violent
love a partner who beat her to the point of requiring hospitalization? We would expect the woman to behavior of her partner, she also believes that he is capable of killing her, and that there is no
pack her bags and go. Where is her self-respect? Why does she not cut loose and make a new life for escape.[55] Battered women feel unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to leave the
herself? Such is the reaction of the average person confronted with the so-called battered wife relationship.[56] Unless a shelter is available, she stays with her husband, not only because she
syndrome.[44] typically lacks a means of self-support, but also because she fears that if she leaves she would be
found and hurt even more.[57]
 In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records for specific evidence establishing that Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense must
appellant, due to the repeated abuse she had suffered from her spouse over a long period of time, face a real threat on ones life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not
became afflicted with the battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to find sufficient evidence merely imaginary.[61] Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites and effect of self-
that would support such a conclusion. More specifically, we failed to find ample evidence that would defense:[62]
confirm the presence of the essential characteristics of BWS.

The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence supposedly Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not incur any criminal liability:
characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering
incidents. In relating to the court a quo how the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben started, 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances
Marivic perfectly described the tension-building phase of the cycle. She was able to explain in concur;
adequate detail the typical characteristics of this stage. However, that single incident does not prove
the existence of the syndrome. In other words, she failed to prove that in at least another battering
First. Unlawful aggression;
episode in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build up prior to acute battering? How Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
did Marivic normally respond to Bens relatively minor abuses? What means did she employ to try to
prevent the situation from developing into the next (more violent) stage? Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense.[63] It presupposes actual,
sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger thereof -- on the life or safety of a
Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle. She
person.[64] In the present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a
simply mentioned that she would usually run away to her mothers or fathers house;[58] that Ben
sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. She
would seek her out, ask for her forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing his words, she
had already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their childrens bedroom.
would return to their common abode.
During that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence
Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent incidents between her and her spouse? Did she of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual
believe that she was the only hope for Ben to reform? And that she was the sole support of his threat on her life or safety.
emotional stability and well-being? Conversely, how dependent was she on him? Did she feel helpless
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their childrens bedroom -- and based
and trapped in their relationship? Did both of them regard death as preferable to separation?
on past violent incidents, there was a great probability that he would still have pursued her and
In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself her factual experiences and thoughts inflicted graver harm -- then, the imminence of the real threat upon her life would not have ceased
that would clearly and fully demonstrate the essential characteristics of the syndrome. yet. Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical
assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a
The Court appreciates the ratiocinations given by the expert witnesses for the defense. Indeed, predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can
they were able to explain fully, albeit merely theoretically and scientifically, how the personality of the defend her life would amount to sentencing her to murder by installment.[65] Still, impending danger
battered woman usually evolved or deteriorated as a result of repeated and severe beatings inflicted (based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendants use of
upon her by her partner or spouse. They corroborated each others testimonies, which were culled deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required
from their numerous studies of hundreds of actual cases. However, they failed to present in court the imminence of danger.[66] Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense may
factual experiences and thoughts that appellant had related to them -- if at all -- based on which they be appreciated.
concluded that she had BWS.
We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense.[67] In
We emphasize that in criminal cases, all the elements of a modifying circumstance must be the absence of such aggression, there can be no self-defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part
proven in order to be appreciated. To repeat, the records lack supporting evidence that would of the victim.[68] Thus, Marivics killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.
establish all the essentials of the battered woman syndrome as manifested specifically in the case of
the Genosas.

Mitigating Circumstances Present

BWS as Self-Defense
In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did not raise any other modifying
circumstances that would alter her penalty, we deem it proper to evaluate and appreciate in her favor
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself establish the legal circumstances that mitigate her criminal liability. It is a hornbook doctrine that an appeal in a criminal
right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self- case opens it wholly for review on any issue, including that which has not been raised by the
defense.[59] parties.[69]

From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons further that crucial to the BWS From several psychological tests she had administered to Marivic, Dra. Dayan, in her
defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the offense [60] -- she must have Psychological Evaluation Report dated November 29, 2000, opined as follows:
actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to kill him in order
to save her life.
This is a classic case of a Battered Woman Syndrome. The repeated battering Marivic experienced Q But just the same[,] neurosis especially on battered woman syndrome x x x affects x x x
with her husband constitutes a form of [cumulative] provocation which broke down her psychological his or her mental capacity?
resistance and natural self-control. It is very clear that she developed heightened sensitivity to sight
of impending danger her husband posed continuously. Marivic truly experienced at the hands of her A Yes, your Honor.
abuser husband a state of psychological paralysis which can only be ended by an act of violence on
Q As you were saying[,] it x x x obfuscated her rationality?
her part. [70]
A Of course obfuscated.[73]
Dr. Pajarillo corroborates the findings of Dra. Dayan. He explained that the effect of repetitious
In sum, the cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted upon appellant resulted in
pain taking, repetitious battering, [and] repetitious maltreatment as well as the severity and the
cumulative provocation which broke down her psychological resistance and natural self-control,
prolonged administration of the battering is posttraumatic stress disorder.[71] Expounding thereon, he
psychological paralysis, and difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory.
said:
Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such manifestations were analogous to an
Q What causes the trauma, Mr. Witness?
illness that diminished the exercise by appellant of her will power without, however, depriving her of
A What causes the trauma is probably the repetitious battering. Second, the severity of the consciousness of her acts. There was, thus, a resulting diminution of her freedom of action,
battering. Third, the prolonged administration of battering or the prolonged intelligence or intent. Pursuant to paragraphs 9[74] and 10[75] of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code,
commission of the battering and the psychological and constitutional stamina of the this circumstance should be taken in her favor and considered as a mitigating factor. [76]
victim and another one is the public and social support available to the victim. If
In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon
nobody is interceding, the more she will go to that disorder....
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
xxxxxxxxx passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason.[77] To appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1) there
Q You referred a while ago to severity. What are the qualifications in terms of severity of is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not far
the postraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Pajarillo? removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the
accused might recover her normal equanimity.[78]
A The severity is the most severe continuously to trig[g]er this post[t]raumatic stress
disorder is injury to the head, banging of the head like that. It is usually the very very Here, an acute battering incident, wherein Ben Genosa was the unlawful aggressor, preceded his
severe stimulus that precipitate this post[t]raumatic stress disorder. Others are being killed by Marivic. He had further threatened to kill her while dragging her by the neck towards a
suffocating the victim like holding a pillow on the face, strangulating the individual, cabinet in which he had kept a gun. It should also be recalled that she was eight months pregnant at
suffocating the individual, and boxing the individual. In this situation therefore, the the time. The attempt on her life was likewise on that of her fetus.[79] His abusive and violent acts, an
victim is heightened to painful stimulus, like for example she is pregnant, she is very aggression which was directed at the lives of both Marivic and her unborn child, naturally produced
susceptible because the woman will not only protect herself, she is also to protect the passion and obfuscation overcoming her reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a separate
fetus. So the anxiety is heightened to the end [sic] degree. room, her emotional and mental state continued. According to her, she felt her blood pressure rise;
she was filled with feelings of self-pity and of fear that she and her baby were about to die. In a fit of
Q But in terms of the gravity of the disorder, Mr. Witness, how do you classify? indignation, she pried open the cabinet drawer where Ben kept a gun, then she took the weapon and
used it to shoot him.
A We classify the disorder as [acute], or chronic or delayed or [a]typical.
The confluence of these events brings us to the conclusion that there was no considerable period
Q Can you please describe this pre[-]classification you called delayed or [atypical]? of time within which Marivic could have recovered her normal equanimity. Helpful is Dr. Pajarillos
testimony[80] that with neurotic anxiety -- a psychological effect on a victim of overwhelming brutality
A The acute is the one that usually require only one battering and the individual will
[or] trauma -- the victim relives the beating or trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually
manifest now a severe emotional instability, higher irritability remorse, restlessness,
being beaten at the time. She cannot control re-experiencing the whole thing, the most vicious and
and fear and probably in most [acute] cases the first thing will be happened to the
the trauma that she suffered. She thinks of nothing but the suffering. Such reliving which is beyond
individual will be thinking of suicide.
the control of a person under similar circumstances, must have been what Marivic experienced during
Q And in chronic cases, Mr. Witness? the brief time interval and prevented her from recovering her normal equanimity. Accordingly, she
should further be credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
A The chronic cases is this repetitious battering, repetitious maltreatment, any prolonged,
it is longer than six (6) months. The [acute] is only the first day to six (6) months. It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological paralysis as well as passion
After this six (6) months you become chronic. It is stated in the book specifically that and obfuscation -- did not arise from the same set of facts.
after six (6) months is chronic. The [a]typical one is the repetitious battering but the
On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the severity of the
individual who is abnormal and then become normal. This is how you get neurosis
battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a period
from neurotic personality of these cases of post[t]raumatic stress disorder. [72]
of time resulted in her psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the
Answering the questions propounded by the trial judge, the expert witness clarified further: exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts.
 The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the violent aggression he had A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open the drawer but he could
inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the incident occurred when she was eight months pregnant not open it because he did not have the key then he pulled his wallet which contained
with their child was deemed by her as an attempt not only on her life, but likewise on that of their a blade about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill me and I
unborn child. Such perception naturally produced passion and obfuscation on her part. smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade fell. The one he used to open the
drawer I saw, it was a pipe about that long, and when he was about to pick-up the
Second Legal Issue: wallet and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room, and on that very
Treachery moment everything on my mind was to pity on myself, then the feeling I had on that
very moment was the same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to
vomit.
There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means,
methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense that the COURT INTERPRETER
offended party might make.[81] In order to qualify an act as treacherous, the circumstances invoked (The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
must be proven as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or
conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence.[82] Because of the gravity of the
resulting offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.[83] xxxxxxxxx

Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial court imposed the penalty of
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you please describe this blade
death upon appellant. It inferred this qualifying circumstances merely from the fact that the lifeless
about 3 inches long, how does it look like?
body of Ben had been found lying in bed with an open, depressed, circular fracture located at the
back of his head. As to exactly how and when he had been fatally attacked, however, the prosecution A Three (3) inches long and inch wide.
failed to establish indubitably. Only the following testimony of appellant leads us to the events
surrounding his death: Q It is a flexible blade?

Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged you? How did he drag A Its a cutter.
you?
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
COURT:
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand flexed forcibly in her front
neck) Q How did he do it?

A And he dragged me towards the door backward. A He wanted to cut my throat.

ATTY. TABUCANON: Q With the same blade?

Q Where did he bring you? A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.

A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then he kept on shouting at
xxxxxxxxx
me that you might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag me

Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer? ATTY. TABUCANON:
A Yes, sir. Q You said that this blade fell from his grip, is it correct?
Q What is there in the drawer? A Yes, because I smashed him.
A I was aware that it was a gun. Q What happened?
COURT INTERPRETER A Ben tried to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I pick-up the pipe and I smashed him and I
ran to the other room.
(At this juncture the witness started crying)
Q What else happened?
ATTY. TABUCANON:
A When I was in the other room, I felt the same thing like what happened before when I
Q Were you actually brought to the drawer? was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about to vomit. I know my blood pressure
A Yes, sir. was raised. I was frightened I was about to die because of my blood pressure.

Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer? COURT INTERPRETER:
 (Upon the answer of the witness getting the pipe and smashed him, the witness at the Epilogue
same time pointed at the back of her neck or the nape).

ATTY. TABUCANON:
Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman syndrome was neither easy nor
Q You said you went to the room, what else happened? simple to analyze and recognize vis--vis the given set of facts in the present case. The Court agonized
on how to apply the theory as a modern-day reality. It took great effort beyond the normal manner in
A Considering all the physical sufferings that Ive been through with him, I took pity on which decisions are made -- on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence applicable to the proven
myself and I felt I was about to die also because of my blood pressure and the baby, facts. To give a just and proper resolution of the case, it endeavored to take a good look at studies
so I got that gun and I shot him. conducted here and abroad in order to understand the intricacies of the syndrome and the distinct
personality of the chronically abused person. Certainly, the Court has learned much. And definitely,
COURT the solicitor general and appellants counsel, Atty. Katrina Legarda, have helped it in such learning
process.
/to Atty. Tabucanon
While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we can only work within the limits
Q You shot him?
of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We cannot make or invent them. Neither can we amend the
A Yes, I distorted the drawer.[84] Revised Penal Code. Only Congress, in its wisdom, may do so.

The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of treachery. There is no showing of The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered
the victims position relative to appellants at the time of the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is the woman syndrome. We now sum up our main points. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence
rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must
anticipated aggression from the assailant.[85] 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
Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault adopted by the aggressor must killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm
have been consciously and deliberately chosen for the specific purpose of accomplishing the unlawful to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken
act without risk from any defense that might be put up by the party attacked.[86] There is no showing, altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of
though, that the present appellant intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her the present case, however, not all of these elements were duly established.
husband without any risk to herself from any retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, it
appears that the thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment when she WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby AFFIRMED.
decided to kill her batterer-spouse. In the absence of any convincing proof that she consciously and However, there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending
deliberately employed the method by which she committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, her commission of the offense, her penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
this Court resolves the doubt in her favor.[87] 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.
Proper Penalty
Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.
The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion
perpetua to death. Since two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance have been Puno, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
found to have attended the commission of the offense, the penalty shall be lowered by one (1) Davide, Jr., C.J., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., join Justice Santiago in her
degree, pursuant to Article 64 of paragraph 5[88] of the same Code.[89] The penalty of reclusion dissent.
temporal in its medium period is imposable, considering that two mitigating circumstances are to be Vitug and Quisumbing JJ., in the result.
taken into account in reducing the penalty by one degree, and no other modifying circumstances were Ynares-Santiago J., see dissenting opinion.
shown to have attended the commission of the offense.[90] Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the minimum of the penalty shall be within the range of that which is next lower in degree -- prision
mayor -- and the maximum shall be within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal.

Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, we deem it just and proper to impose the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, or six (6) years and one (1) day in prison as
minimum; to reclusion temporal in its medium period, or 14 years 8 months and 1 day as maximum.
Noting that appellant has already served the minimum period, she may now apply for and be released
from detention on parole.[91]
 Title: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981 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.
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 of the Revised Penal
Code 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
Facts: 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
Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and wounded his husband which inclusion of the said experts’ reports in the records of the case for purposes of the automatic review
ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she did not provoke her husband when she got or, in the alternative, a partial re-opening of the case a quo to take the testimony of said
home that night and it was her husband who began the provocation. The appellant said she was psychologists and psychiatrists. The Supreme Court partly granted the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION of
frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby the appellant. It remanded the case to the trial court for reception of expert psychological and/or
safely. 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
The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five times, trial court and subsequently submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the records.
but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The appellant said that the reason
why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy about his recent ISSUE:
girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to be 1. Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the “battered woman syndrome” as constituting
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-defense admitted the self defense.
killing of her husband. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide, with the aggravating 2. Whether or not treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.
circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.
Ruling: 1. The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that she is afflicted with the
Issues: “battered woman syndrome”.
(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.
(2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing. 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
Held: 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
For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man
arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered
be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her woman.”
intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must
have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence,”
and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life, and; (c) At the time of the which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the
killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
to the accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the former against the latter.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered woman
For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating circumstance because the quarrel syndrome. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at
or argument that preceded the killing must have forewarned the victim of the assailant’s aggression. 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 person’s
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
PEOPLE vs. GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981, January 15 2004. of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could
People of the Philippines vs. Marivic Genosa satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of
these elements were duly established.
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, The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence” supposedly characterizing
Ben changed and the couple would always quarrel and sometimes their quarrels became violent. the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but
Appellant testified that every time her husband came home drunk, he would provoke her and appellant failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through
sometimes beat her. Whenever beaten by her husband, she consulted medical doctors who testified a similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the
during the trial. On the night of the killing, appellant and the victim were quarreled and the victim cycle.
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, In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself establish the legal right
alleged that the cause of death of the victim was by beating through the use of a lead pipe. Appellant 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 NOTE: After this case was decided by the Supreme Court, R.A. 9262, otherwise known as Anti-
real threat on one’s life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 was enacted. Sec. 26 of said law provides
imaginary. Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides that the following requisites of self-defense must that "xxx. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women
concur: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability nothwithstanding the absence of any of the
it; and (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.xxx"

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 children’s 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.
 ISSUES:
PEOPLE v. JAURIGUE 76 Phil. 174Expand Messagesanna_biscochoMessage 1 of 1 , Jul 26 11:49 AMView
SourcePEOPLE v. JAURIGUE76 Phil. 174 Whether or not the lower court erred in (1) not holding said appellant had acted in thelegitimate defense of her honor, (2) in
not finding in her favor additional mitigatingcircumstances, and (3) in holding that the commission of the alleged offense
FACTS1. Defendant/Respondent Avelina Jaurigue attended byaggravating circumstance.
–
found guilty of homicide (for killing Amado Capiña) by Court of First Instance HELD:
of Tayabas2. Defendant appealed to the CA contending that the lower court erred in not holding appellant hadacted in
defense of honor therefore she's completely absolved by criminal liability In the mind of the court, there is not the least doubt that, in stabbing to death thedeceased Amado Capina, in the manner
and form and under the circumstances aboveindicated, the defendant and appellant committed the crime of homicide, with
ISSUEW/N respondent should be completely absolved of criminal liability considering her act done in defenseof her noaggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be
honor. (Art 11 of RPC) considered in her favor.Said chapel where the incident took place was lighted with electric lights and there wereseveral
people inside; under the circumstances, there was and there could be nopossibility of her being raped. The means employed
HELDDefendant Jaurigue by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under the facts and circumstances of the case, she cannot
–
cannot be legally declared completely exempt from criminal liability.With the modification of the judgment appealed from,
defendant is sentenced to indeterminate penaltyranging from 2 months and 1 day arresto mayor minimum to 2 years 4 People vs Jaurigue and Jaurigue
months and 1 day maximum withnecessary penalties of P2,000.REASONAccording to the facts established by the evidence Facts:
and found by the learned trial court, when AmadoCapiña (deceased) sat beside the defendant near the chapel door placing Aveline Jaurigue and Amado Capiña lived in the barrio of Sta. Isabel, City of San Pablo,
his hand on the upper portion ofher right thigh, without her consent, the said chapel was lighted and there were already Province of Laguna. Amado had been courting Avelina. He had snatched handkerchief
several people.Under these circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility for her to be raped. And so whenshe belonging to Avelina, bearing her nickname “Aveling” while it was being washed by her
struck Capiña with a knife on his neck resulting death, the means she employed to defend her honorwas excessive. cousin Josefa Tapay. Avelina who was feeding her dog under her house, Amado
approached her and tells her of his love and suddenly embraced and kissed her and
The People of the Philippines, touched her breasts she slapped him, gave him a fist blows and kicked him. Since then
plaintiff-appelleevs she armed herself with a long Fan Knife.
Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue, About midnight, Amado climbed up the house of the defendant and entered the room
defendants. while Avelina was sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing
Avelina Jaurigue her. She screamed for help, which awakened her parents. Amado came out of the place
, appellant. where he was hiding, under the bed and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue, asking for
FACTS: forgiveness. Nicolas sent for the barrio lieutenant and Amado’s parents. Amado’s parents
Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, for the crime of murder, of apologize for their son’s misconduct. After which, Avelina received information that
which Nicolas Jaurigue was acquitted, butdefendant Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to Amado had been falsely boasting in the neighborhood of having taken liberties with her
anindeterminate penalty ranging from seven years, four months and one day of person and asked Amado to elope with her and if he wouldn’t marry her, she’ll poison
prision mayorto herself.
thirteen years, nine months and eleven days of Nicolas went to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists, of which he was the treasurer
reclusion temporal, and along with him was the barrio lieutenant Casimiro Lozada. Avelina arrived shortly
with theaccessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, AmandoCapina, in the sum of P2,000, after her father; she sat next to the last one nearest the door. Amado who was sitted on the
and to pay one-half of the costs. She was also creditedwith one-half of the period of preventive imprisonment suffered by other side of the chapel then immediately transferred and sat on the right side of Avelina.
her. Then suddenly, he placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Because of this
highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado, Avelina pulled with her right hand the
From said judgment of conviction, defendant Avelina Jaurigue appealed to the Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon. fan knife, which she had in a pocket of her dress.
On September 20, 1942, at around 8o’clock in the evening, Nicolas Jaurigue went to the Amado seized her right hand but quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed
chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists o attend religious services. Avelina Jaurigueentered the chapel shortly after the arrival Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, inflicting him a wound of 4 and 1/2
of her father, also for the purpose of attendingreligious services,Upon observing the presence of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado inches deep. Amado died from the wound. Nicolas and Avelina went home as ordered by
Capina went to the bench onwhich Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side, and, without saying a word, Amado,with the the barrio lieutenant and instructed to wait for the arrival of the municipal authorities.
greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her Upon the arrival of 3 policemen Avelina surrendered the knife.
personal dignity and honor, pulled out with her righthand the fan knife which she had in a pocket of her dress, Issue: WON Accused is qualified of the JC (Art.11, par.1)?
with the intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly Held:
grabbedthe knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of theneck, inflicting upon him a No. Avelina Jaurigue is not exempted from criminal liability. The means employed by
wound about 4 1/2 inches deep, which was necessarilymortal.Fearing that Amado's relatives might retaliate, barrio her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive and she cannot be legally
lieutenant Lozada advised NicolasJaurigue and herein defendant and appellant to go home immediately, to close their doors declared completely exempt from criminal liability. The offense was committed by the
and windows and not to admit anybody into the house, unless accompanied byhim.Then three policemen arrived in their defendant with the Aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place
house, at about 10 o'clock that night, andquestioned them about the incident, defendant and appellant immediately dedicated to religious worship, cannot be legally sustained. There is no evidence to
surrenderedthe knife marked as Exhibit B, and informed said policemen briefly of what had actuallyhappened show that the defendant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel. She was
able to kill under the greatest provocation. She is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty.
CASE DIGEST: FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan and Office of the Special Prosecutor (G.R. No/ 148431,
July 28, 2005)
Facts:
Police officers CABANLIG, PADILLA, ABESAMIS, MERCADO and ESTEBAN were all charged for the
MURDER of Jimmy Valino before the Sandiganbayan. Jimmy Valino was a detained prisoner who was
escorted to retrieve the effects of the crime to the place where he hid the same. Aboard the police
vehicle, Jimmy Valino suddenly grabbed the M16 rifle and about to jump out of the jeep. CABANLIG
shouted “hoy!”and without issuing any warning of any sort, CABANLIG fired at Valino, hitting his
head, left side of the chest and left lower back.
CABANLIG admitted shooting Valino during the trial. However, Cabanlig justified the shooting as an
act of self-defense and performance of duty. Nevertheless, Sandiganbayan CONVICTED CABANLIG
but acquitted his 4 companions.
Upon appeal, the SUPREME COURT eventually ACQUITTED CABANLIG
RULING 1: Because the killing was justified and that the same was done in the fulfillment of duty
A policeman in the performance of duty is JUSTIFIED in using such force as is reasonably (and
absolutely)necessary to (1) secure and detain the offender, (2) overcome his resistance, (3) prevent
his escape, (4) recapture him if he escapes, and (4) protect himself from bodily harm. (People v.
Oanis, 74 Phil 257 [1943]; People v. Lagata (83 Phil 150 [1949]).
Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty, unlawful
aggression from the victim is NOT a requisite.
In People v. Delima,(46 Phil 738 [1992]) where the killing of a fugitive who lunged at a policeman
with a bamboo-makeshift lance, the SC ruled that the same was done in the fulfillment of duty. The
fugitive’s unlawful aggression, in that case, had already ceased when the policeman killed him,
however, the policeman's act of shooting at him is justified because he was running away from him
when he was shot. Ordinarily, it may appear that the policeman, acting in the fulfillment of duty, is
the aggressor, but his aggression is NOT UNLAWFUL, it being necessary to fulfill his duty. But IF the
policeman was a PRIVATE PERSON, not in the performance of duty, and the same situation was given,
there would be NO self-defense because there would be NO unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased.
RULING 2: Because Cabanlig did not exceed the fulfillment of duty when he IMMEDIATELY SHOT
Valino without issuing a warning.
The duty to issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at all times and at all cost to the detriment of
the life of law enforcers. The directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation where several
options are still available to the law enforcers. In exceptional circumstances where the threat to the
life of a law enforcer is already imminent AND there is NO OTHER option but to use force to subdue
the offender, the law enforcer’s failure to issue a warning is EXCUSABLE.
RULING 3: Was there an OVERKILL?
There was none.
FROM SHOZ: This is one of my favorite SC cases and most of the time, I’m always using this to justify
my actions. I’ve been through with lots of CHR cases and I am always asking them -- do you ever
witness a shootout? Do you ever experience how your brain runs when guns were being fired at you
and you’re scared that you'll die and you can no longer see your family? Most of them deny to
respond but just a piece of advice, those CHR people, they are not our enemies.. like us, they are just
doing their job.. all they need is to know our side of the story- with evidentiary proof of course.
SYCIP JR. v. CA
BY MAROON 5 PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES JUNE 1, 2012 BP22 Facts:

Facts: On August 24, 1989, Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty
-Francisco Sycip agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit. Corporation (FRC), a townhouse unit in the latter’s project at Bacoor, Cavite. Upon execution of the
-Upon execution of the contract to sell, Sycip, as required issued to FRC 48 postdated checks, each on the contract to sell, as required, issued to FRC, forty-eight (48) postdated checks, each in the amount of
amount of P9,304 covering 48 monthly instalments. P9,304.00, covering 48 monthly installments.
-After moving in his unit, Sycip complained to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete features of the
townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint. After moving in his unit, Sycip complained, to FRC regarding defects in the unit and incomplete
-Sycip served on FRC 2 notarial notices to the effect that he was suspending his instalment payments on the unit features of the townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint. Dissatisfied, Sycip served on FRC two
pending compliance with the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use (2) notorial notices to the effect that he was suspending his installment payments on the unit pending
Regulatory Board (HLURB). compliance with the project plans and specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use
-Notwithstanding the notarial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment Sycip’s postdated checks in its Regulatory Board (HLURB). Sycip and twelve (12) out of fourteen (14) unit buyers then filed a
possession. Sycip sent “stop payment orders” to the bank. complaint with the HLURB. The complaint was dismissed as to the defect, but FRC was ordered by the
-The bank (Citibank) advised Sycip to close his checking account to avoid paying bank charges evry time he HLURB to finish all incomplete features of its townhouse project. Sycip appealed the dismissal of the
made a “stop payment” order. complaint as to the alleged defects.
-Due to the closure of petitioner’s checking account, the drawee bank dishonoured six postdated checks. FRC
filed a complaint against petitioner for violations of BP Blg 22 involving said dishonoured checks. Notwithstanding the notorial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment Sycip’s postdated
-RTC and CA found petitioner guilty of violating Sec 1 of BP Blg 22 in each of the six cases. checks in its possession. Sycip sent “stop payment orders” to the bank. When FRC continued to
present the other postdated checks to the bank as the due date fell, the bank advised Sycip to close
Issue: w/n the CA erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. his checking account to avoid paying bank charges every time he made a “stop payment” order on
[Or yung related sa topic] w/n petitioner has a valid defense to the charges against him the forthcoming checks. Due to the closure of petitioner’s checking account, the drawee bank
dishonored six postdated checks. FRC file a complaint against petitioner for violations of B.P. Blg. 22
Held: Petitioner’s exercise of a right of the buyer under Article 23 of PD 957 is a valid defense to the charges involving said dishonored checks.
against him. Petition is granted. Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the charges against him under BP Blg. 22.
Issues:
RD:
-We find that although the first element of the offense exists, the other elements have not been established (a) Whether or not the accused is criminally liable of the B.P. Blg. 22?
beyond reasonable doubt.
Under the provisions of BP Blg 22, an offense is committed when the following elements are present: (1) the (b) Whether or not the trial court erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of the
making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, Bouncing Checks Law?
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonour of the check by the Held:
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The trial court finds accused Francisco T. Sycip guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Sec. 1
We find from the records no showing that at the time said checks were issued, petitioner had knowledge that his of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and, accordingly, he is hereby sentenced ordered to pay the offended
deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to cover them when presented for encashment. party, FRC, as and for actual damages with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of
-We are of the view that petitioner had a valid cause to order his bank to stop payment. The third element of commencement of these actions, until full payment thereof.
“subsequent dishonour of the check…without valid cause” appear to us not established by the prosecution.
-Following Article 11 (5) of the RPC, petitoner’s exercise of a right of the buyer under Art 23 of PD 957 is a valid Dissastied, Sycip appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court erred in affirming
defense to charges against him. the decision of the lower court finding that the accused-appellant did not have any justifiable cause to
Sec 23 of PD 957: The buyer of a townhouse unit has the right to suspend his amortization payments, should stop or otherwise prevent the payment of the subject checks by the drawee bank. The CA also erred
the subdivision or condominium developer fail to develop or complete the project in accordance with duly that the accused-appellant did not have sufficient funds with the drawee to cover the subject checks
approved plans and specifications. upon resentment for payment thereof.

However, while B.P. Blg. 22 was enacted to safeguard the interest of the banking system. It is difficult
Criminal Law Case Digest: Sycip vs Court of Appeals G.R. No. 12059 March 17, 2000 to see how conviction of the accused in this case will protect the sanctity of the financial system.
Sycip vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 12059 Given the findings of the HLURB as to incomplete features in the construction of petitioner’s and other
March 17, 2000 units of the subject condominium bought on installment from FRC, the Court of Appeals held that the
petitioner had a valid cause to order his bank to stop payment. Hence, it said that offenses punished
Criminal Law by a special law, like the Bouncing Checks Law, are not subject to the Revised Penal Code, the Code
is supplementary to such law. The petitioner, Francisco T. Sycip, Jr., is acquitted of the charges
Criminal Case Digest against him under B.P. Blg. 22, for lack of sufficient evidence to prove the offenses charged beyond
reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.