FACTS:

This case involves an appeal filed by Marivic Genosa y Isidro in connection with the automatic review of her conviction for parricide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City. The Information filed against her alleged that she attacked and killed her husband, Ben Genosa, with the use of a hard deadly weapon, causing his death. After trial, the RTC found Marivic guilty of parricide aggravated by treachery and sentenced her to death.

In her appeal, Marivic argues that the trial court erred in concluding that she had lied about the means she employed in killing her husband. She consistently claimed that she shot him, but the trial judge ruled that the cause of his death was "cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed fracture of the occipital bone" resulting from her admitted act of "smashing" him with a pipe. Marivic alleges that this conclusion was unsupported by the evidence on record, which did not include a forensic autopsy report on the victim's body.

Marivic further alleges that the trial court failed to appreciate her self-defense theory despite the evidence of repeated and severe beatings she had suffered at the hands of her husband. She argues that her act of killing her husband was equivalent to self-defense under the surrounding circumstances. Marivic prays for the exhumation of the victim's body and re-examination of the cause of death, as well as for her examination by qualified psychologists or psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time of the killing.

The solicitor general, on behalf of the State, objects to Marivic's motion, arguing that she was not deprived of her right to due process.

ISSUES:

1. Whether exhumation of the victim's body is necessary to determine the cause of death.

2. Whether the appellant should be allowed to present evidence on the "battered woman syndrome" as a defense.

3. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering the examination of the accused to determine his competency to stand trial.

4. Whether the trial court violated the constitutional rights of the accused by denying him a fair trial prior to conviction.

5. Whether the trial court erred in not considering the defense of insanity.

6. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering a psychological or psychiatric examination of the accused.

7. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing the defense to present expert evidence on the accused's mental and emotional state.

RULING:

1. Exhumation of the victim's body is unnecessary to determine the cause of death. The appellant has already admitted to killing her husband and engaged in acts that could have caused his death. The court believes that exhumation is immaterial at this time as there is no need to determine which specific act caused the victim's death. The opportunity to present evidence on the cause of death should have been made before the trial court. The court is not a trier of facts and will not authorize the reception of evidence that was available during the trial stage.

2. The court allows the appellant to present evidence on the "battered woman syndrome" as a defense. The syndrome is a novel defense theory that raises the possibility that the appellant's perception of danger and honest belief in its imminence may have been affected by her experiences as a battered woman. The court acknowledges the lacuna in the law and jurisprudence regarding this defense and believes that the syndrome deserves serious consideration, especially in light of its potential effect on the appellant's life and criminal liability.

3. Yes, the trial court erred in not ordering the examination of the accused to determine his competency to stand trial. The trial judge is not a psychiatrist or psychologist and cannot determine the state of a person's mental health.

4. Yes, the trial court violated the constitutional rights of the accused by denying him a fair trial prior to conviction. Denying the accused an examination by a competent medical expert practically denied him a fair trial.

5. Yes, the trial court erred in not considering the defense of insanity. Proof of insanity could have exempted the accused from criminal liability.

6. Yes, the trial court erred in not ordering a psychological or psychiatric examination of the accused. Without expert testimony on the accused's mental and emotional state, the court cannot properly evaluate the defense's plea.

7. Yes, the trial court erred in not allowing the defense to present expert evidence on the accused's mental and emotional state. The defense has the right to present evidence, and the prosecution has the right to a fair trial, including the opportunity to cross-examine defense witnesses and refute expert opinions.

PRINCIPLES:

• The court is not a trier of facts and will not authorize the reception of evidence that was available during the trial stage.

• Accused persons facing the possibility of the death penalty must be given fair opportunities to proffer all possible defenses that could save them from capital punishment.

• The syndrome may be considered as a defense if it can be proven that the appellant's perception of danger and honest belief in its imminence were affected by her experiences as a battered woman.

• A trial judge is not an expert in determining the state of a person's mental health and should order a psychiatric examination if the accused's competency to stand trial is in question.

• Denying an accused an examination by a competent medical expert violates their constitutional rights to a fair trial.

• Proof of insanity could exempt an accused from criminal liability.

• Expert testimony on an accused's mental and emotional state is essential when evaluating a defense plea, such as battered woman syndrome.

• Both the defense and prosecution have the right to a fair trial, which includes presenting and refuting expert evidence.