Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente ramum est malefactor iure publico iure, quod definit scelera

sua natura agit, poena et providet Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. (Art. 11, Par. 1) The scope included self-defense not only of life, but also of rights like those of chastity, property and honor. It has also been applied to the crime of libel. (People v Chua Chiong, 51 OG 1932)

c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. A person may be justified in causing injury to another in defense of his property (fencing off the house of the accused) even if there was no attack against his person. To hold otherwise would render nugatory the provisions of circumstance No. 1 which recognizes the right of an individual to defend his rights, one of which is to own and enjoy his property. (People v. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389)

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Genosa G.R.No. 135981 15January2004

FACTS OF THE CASE:

That Marivic Genosa, the Appellant on the 15November1995, attacked and wounded

his husband, which ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it was her husband who began the provocation. The Appellant said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, The Appelant had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on December 1, 1995.

The Appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five (5) times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The Apellant said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because 'he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos.

The Appellant after being interviewed by specialists, has been shown to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self defense admitted the killing of her husband, she was then found guilty of Parricide, with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Can Marivic Genosa be granted the Justifying circumstance of Self-defense, and can she be held liable for the aggravating circumstance of treachery?

No, Since self- defense since the existence of Battered woman syndrome, which the appellant has been shown to be suffering in the relationship does not in itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. In the present case, however, according to the testimony of the appellant there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of the husband 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.

Without continuous aggression there can be no self-defense. And absence of aggression does not warrant complete or incomplete self-defense.

No, 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 offended party might make.

The circumstances must be shown as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence. 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.

In the present case, however it was not conclusively shown, that the appellant intentionally chose a specific means of successfully attacking her 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 decided to kill her spouse. In the absence of any convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the method by which she committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the doubt should be resolved in her favor.

HELD:

The conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending her commission of the offense, her 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.

ADDENDUM:

When can BWS (Battered Woman Syndrome) as self defense be appreciated?

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 predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life "would amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.' Still, impending danger (based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendant's use of deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated.

As long as there is actual danger of being raped, a woman is justified in killing her aggressor, in the defense of her honor. Thus, where the deceased grabbed the defendant in a dark night at about 9 o'clock, in an isolated barrio trail, holding her firmly from behind, without warning and without revealing his identity, and, in the struggle that followed, touched her private parts, and that she was unable to free herself by means of her strength alone, she was considered justified in making use of a pocket knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor, and which ended in his death, since she had no other means of defending herself, and consequently exempt from all criminal liability (People vs. De la Cruz, 16 Phil., 344).

Nature: Appeal from the judgment of the CFI of Masbate Facts: On April 17, 1981, while Celis Lupango and his companions were celebrating the birthday of Isabelo Radaza Jr., Abner Ongonion & Mateo Abagon arrived. Ongonion, with a 6-inched double-bladed knife stabbed Lupango 3 or 4 times. Abagon also stabbed Lupango several times with a 7-inch knife. While Lupango was carried out, Ongonion, who was waiting outside, drew his firearm & fired 2 shots at Lupango & his companions to scare them off. When they ran away, Ongonion, Abagon and their companions approached and took turns in stabbing the body of Celis Lupango with bolos and knives. Issues, Held and Ratio: 1. WON Ongonion and Abagon are guilty of murder

Yes. Having admitted the killing, Ongonion must clearly establish that he acted in selfdefense. However, the number and nature of the stab wounds inflicted by more than one person belie his theory. According to testimonies, the attack by the assailants was unprovoked. It was also indicated that the stabbing was intentional. It is also negated by the physical evidence and other circumstances, such as his failure to present the knife upon surrender, his failure to tell the police authorities that he killed the deceased in self-defense, and the absence of any injury on the body of Ongonion. Not one of the elements of self-defense is present. Appellant Ongonions theory of self-defense is therefore untenable. Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses do not affect their credibility.

Appellant Abagons defense was likewise untenable, since it can be proved that it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime 2. WON conspiracy can be established

Yes. Appellants fully concurred in their actions. They came to the victim one after the other and attacked him with undiverted purpose. They also left together. That the assailants acted in concerted efforts with community of criminal purpose to ensure the death of the victim is indicative of conspiracy between them. Even if conspiracy had not been established, the liability of the two appellants would not change for each inflicted on his own multiple stabbing blows on the victim resulting in mortal injuries. They acted as principals by direct participation. Treachery was likewise proven by evidence since the attack was immediate, sudden and unexpected. Judgment: Judgment appealed from is affirmed, but the penalties are modified