FACTS
Appellant was married to the victim Ben Genosa. In their first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived happily but soon thereafter, the couple would quarrel often and their fights would become violent. Ben, a habitual drinker, became cruel to Marivic; he would provoke her, slap her, pin her down on the bed or beat her. These incidents happened several times and Marivic would often run home to her parents. She had tried to leave her husband at least five times, but Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile.
On the night of the killing, appellant, who was then eight months pregnant, and the victim quarreled. The latter beat her, however, she was able to run to another room. Allegedly there was no provocation on her part when she got home that night, and it was her husband who began the provocation. Frightened that her husband would hurt her and wanting to make sure she would deliver her baby safely, appellant admitted having killed the victim, who was then sleeping at the time, with the use of a gun. She was convicted of the crime of parricide by the Trial Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not Marivic Genosa is guilty of Parricide.
RULING
Yes. Marivic Genosa is guilty of Parricide.
In People v. Malabago, the Supreme Court held:
“The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the absence of a marriage certificate, however, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected to.”
Two of the prosecution witnesses namely, the mother and the brother of appellant’s deceased spouse – attested in court that Ben had been married to Marivic. The defense raised no objection to these testimonies. Moreover, during her direct examination, appellant herself made a judicial admission of her marriage to Ben. Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it, except only when there is a showing that (1) the admission was made through a palpable mistake, or (2) no admission was in fact made. Other than merely attacking the non-presentation of the marriage contract, the defense offered no proof that the admission made by appellant in court as to the fact of her marriage to the deceased was made through a palpable mistake.
