By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Revisiting the “Battered Woman Syndrome”
The “battered woman syndrome” (BWS) is a psychological condition resulting from persistent domestic violence. It has influenced legal defenses for women who kill their abusers. Philippine jurisprudence on BWS acknowledges its impact on a woman’s mental state but does not automatically grant impunity for violent acts. The key consideration is whether the elements of self-defense are present, particularly unlawful aggression.
The landmark case, People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004), significantly shaped the understanding of BWS in the Philippine legal system. In this case, Marivic Genosa admitted to killing her husband and claimed self-defense, arguing that she suffered from BWS. The Supreme Court was asked to consider if BWS constitutes self-defense. The Supreme Court recognized the existence of BWS but clarified that it does not automatically qualify as a complete self-defense. The Court stated that unlawful aggression must be present at the time of the killing. The Court explained that unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof.
Despite not fully justifying the act, the Court in People v. Genosa recognized the cumulative effect of the abuse Marivic endured. The Court appreciated the presence of mitigating circumstances, such as passion and obfuscation, acknowledging that the repeated beatings diminished her willpower. This ruling paved the way for considering BWS as a factor in determining the extent of criminal liability. The Court noted the expert testimony from psychologists, who testified to the effects of BWS, including low self-esteem, emotional dependence, and a tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer’s actions. The syndrome is characterized by a cycle of violence consisting of a tension-building phase, an acute battering incident, and a tranquil, loving phase. The justices considered that Genosa had been subjected to years of abuse.
Later cases, such as Remegio v. People (G.R. No. 196945. September 27, 2017), reiterate the importance of unlawful aggression as a condition for self-defense. In Remegio v. People, the court considered whether the accused was entitled to invoke self-defense. While this case does not directly involve BWS, it reinforces the principle that self-defense requires an imminent threat to one’s life. The courts consider whether a person acted with reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel an attack, emphasizing the need for the means of defense to be proportionate to the threat. The court in Remegio stated that the accused must prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
The Supreme Court has stated that the BWS does not create a right for a woman to kill her abuser; evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. To invoke self-defense, the battered woman must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to kill him to save her life.