Previous 21 / 55 Next

Q So, did you actually see the accused physically? A Yes, sir. Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable Court, was the patient pregnant? A Yes, sir. Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of pregnancy was she? A Eight (8) months pregnant. Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy? A Yes, sir. Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an examination about her pregnancy or for some other findings? A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which complicates her pregnancy. Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined? A Yes, sir. Q For how many days? A One day. Q Where? A At PHILPHOS Hospital. xxx xxx xxx Q Lets go back to the clinical history of Marivic Genosa. You said that you were able to examine her personally on November 6, 1995 and she was 8 months pregnant. What is this all about? A Because she has this problem of tension headache secondary to hypertension and I think I have a record here, also the same period from 1989 to 1995, she had a consultation for twenty-three (23) times. Q For what? A Tension headache. Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that the patient had hypertension?

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

People v. Genosa

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 135981

Date of decision: Jan 15, 2004

Year of decision: 2004

GBV Case Type

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC)

Nature of the case: A Married woman who is 8th month pregnant and belongs to the middle-class sector, admitted that she killed her husband, however to avoid criminal liability invokes self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child. In claiming self-defense, the accused-pregnant woman raised the theory of battered woman syndrome. However, the Supreme Court did not heed the affirmative defense raised by the accused but appreciated the same as mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. As a result, she was convicted but considering the 2 mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty imposed on her was reduced to 6 years and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Consequently, since she has been detained for more than the minimum penalty imposed on her, the director of BuCor is directed to immediately release the accused from custody upon due determination of her eligibility for parole.

Summary of outcome: The accused is convicted.

However, considering that there are two (2) mitigating circumstance Nos. 9 & 10, Article 13 and No. 6 (Passion and Obfuscation), Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposed on her was 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. Consequently, since she has been detained for more than the minimum penalty imposed on her, the director of BuCor is directed to immediately release the accused from custody upon due determination of her eligibility for parole.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.

Long title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant.

Notes: This is the first case where the Supreme Court acknowledged and fully discussed the "battered-woman syndrome". This is also the first time the said syndrome is appreciated as mitigating circumstance of which will result to reducing the sentence of the accused suffering from the same, as what happened in this case.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 10.926601

Longitude: 124.434657

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

GENOSA CASE.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

People v. Genosa

Primary Documents

Notifications