Araza v People, GR No. 247429 [Case Digest]

 

Araza v People,

GR No. 247429

Facts:

            The accused and his wife (complainant) were married. The wife had no marital issues with Accused until he went to Zamboanga City for their networking business. One day, she received a text message informing her that her accused-husband is having an affair with their best friend. At first, she did not believe them. However, that information brought complainant to Zamboanga to see for herself whether it was true. Indeed she was able to confirm that her husband was living with another woman.

She instituted a complaint against the accused and his alleged mistress for Concubinage at the PNP. The case was subsequently amicably settled after the parties executed an Agreement whereby accused and mistress committed themselves never to see each other again. After the case was settled accused lived with complainant. However, it was only for a short time. Without saying a word, accused left complainant. To her surprise, the accused had returned to live with his mistress again.

The complainant went emotionally depressed and anxious; she was suffering from insomnia and asthma. Allegedly, she is still hurting and crying. A case was filed against the accused for Violence Against Women and their Children on Psychological Violence caused by his infidelity. RTC found accused guilty of the said offense. Accused appeal the case to the CA to which it affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused is guilty of psychological violence against his wife.

 

Held:

            YES. Psychological violence is an indispensable element of violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262. Equally essential is the element of emotional anguish and mental suffering, which are personal to the complainant. Psychological violence is the means employed by the perpetrator, while emotional anguish or mental suffering are the effects caused to or the damage sustained by the offended party. The law does not require proof that the victim became psychologically ill due to the psychological violence done by her abuser. Rather, the law only requires emotional anguish and mental suffering to be proven. To establish emotional anguish or mental suffering, jurisprudence only requires that the testimony of the victim to be presented in court, as such experiences are personal to this party.

 

 

In order to establish psychological violence, proof of the commission of any of the acts enumerated in Section 5(i) or similar of such acts, is necessary.

The prosecution has established Araza's guilt beyond reasonable doubt by proving that he committed psychological violence upon his wife by committing marital infidelity. AAA's testimony was strong and credible. She was able to confirm that Araza was living with another woman.

 

People v Genosa, GR No. 135981 [Case Digest]

 

People v Genosa,

GR No. 135981

Facts:

            Appellant Marivic Genosa shot her husband, which led to his death. RTC found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide. Marivic appealed to SC arguing that she acted in self-defence because she suffered severe and repeated beatings at the hands of her husband and that her relationship with him had afflicted her with the “battered woman syndrome.” Marivic who was then eight months pregnant, claimed that she and her husband argued during that night. Fearful that her husband would hurt her and her unborn child, she admitted using a pistol to kill the victim, who was then sleeping at that time. Experts believed that Marivic matched the profile of a battered woman, and her mental state at that time made her re-experience the trauma, which prompted her to kill her husband.

 

Issue:

            Whether Genosa validly invoke the “battered woman syndrome” as constituting self defense.

 

Held:

            NO. The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence” supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle.

 

Santos et al v People, GR No. 242656 [Case Digest]

 

Santos et al v People,

 GR No. 242656

Facts:

            Two separate criminal Informations were filed against Rowena and Ryan for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. PO1 Albao went to the house of Ryan, accompanied by PO2 Altes. He promptly informed Ryan of the search warrant. Ryan was handcuffed and was transferred to the room of Rowena where both accused were informed of the contents of the warrant. The live-in partner of Ryan was outside the house, so there was no one else left in Ryan's room when he was transferred aside from an officer who guarded the door. While converged at Rowena's house, they waited around five minutes for the arrival of the mandatory witnesses: DOJ rep. Solano, media rep. Adiel Auxillo, and Brgy. Kag. Breñis. In the presence of mandatory witnesses; the police found an alleged shabu in the kitchen which marked as "JAA-024-A." The officers also found another drug-items in the adjacent room. Photographs were also taken during the marking and inventory proceedings.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crimes charged.

 

Held:

            YES. In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti and an unbroken chain of custody. The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the links that should be established in the chain of custody.

 

 

èThe accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.

 

èSince knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drugs [are] in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.