A I think for several weeks, she was already having all those tensions, all those anxieties, they were not enough, that the husband was even going to cockfighting x x x A She was angry with him, he was angry with her and I think he dragged her and even spun her around. She tried to fight him so there was a lot of fight and when she was able to escape, she went to another room and she locked herself with the children. And when the husband was for a while very angry he calms down then and then (sic). But I remember before that the husband was looking for the gun and I think he was not able to open the cabinet because she had the key. So during that time, I remember, that she was very much afraid of him, so when the husband calmed down and he was asleep, all she was concerned was to end up her misery, to save her child which she was carrying and to save her two children. I believe that somehow she's not rational.9 xxx xxx xxx PROS. TRUYA Q Mrs. Witness, being an expert witness, giving more the facts and circumstances on this case that the books you studied in the expertise in line and in the 77 hour contact with appellant Mrs. Genosa, could you say that this is not ordinary self-defense but a survival on her part? A Yes, sir. Q To what she did to her husband (sic)? A Yes, sir this is not an ordinary self-defense, but this [is] a need to survive, a need to survive with her two sons and [the] child she's bringing. Q Had she not able to kill her husband, would she still be in the very short moment with the victim (sic)? A If she did not do that she believes that she will be the one who would be killed.10 There is no doubt therefore that Marivic was afflicted with the "Battered Woman Syndrome" and that it was an apprehension of death and the instinct to defend her and her unborn child's life that drove her to kill her husband. The ponente further refused to sustain the self-defense proffered by Marivic because there was allegedly no aggression or danger posed on her life by the victim at the time she attacked the latter. Again, I beg to disagree. Traditionally, in order that self-defense may be appreciated, the unlawful aggression or the attack must be imminent and actually in existence. This interpretation must, however, be re-evaluated visa-vis the recognized inherent characteristic of the psyche of a person afflicted with the "Battered Woman Syndrome." As previously discussed, women afflicted by this syndrome live in constant fear for their life and thus respond in self-defense. Once BWS and an impending danger based on the conduct of the deceased in previous battering episodes are established, actual occurrence of an assault is no longer a condition sine qua non before self defense may be upheld. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. As stated in