Scribd
Upload
88 views1 page

FACTS: Accused-Appellants Dario Cabanas Cual and Dario Maranan Villoceno Were Charged W

Two men, Dario Cabanas Cual and Dario Maranan Villoceno, were charged with murdering Ramil Macasalhig Sabturani with a bolo. The trial court found them guilty, believing the prosecution's case over the defense's claim of self-defense. It noted the 21 stab wounds indicated conspiracy between the two. It sentenced Cual to life imprisonment and Villoceno to a lower term, viewing him as an accomplice for grappling the victim. On appeal, the court found Villoceno was not an accomplice, as there was no evidence he knew of or agreed to Cual's plan, and his struggling with the victim did not show unity with Cual's

Uploaded by

Kayee Kat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
88 views1 page

FACTS: Accused-Appellants Dario Cabanas Cual and Dario Maranan Villoceno Were Charged W

Two men, Dario Cabanas Cual and Dario Maranan Villoceno, were charged with murdering Ramil Macasalhig Sabturani with a bolo. The trial court found them guilty, believing the prosecution's case over the defense's claim of self-defense. It noted the 21 stab wounds indicated conspiracy between the two. It sentenced Cual to life imprisonment and Villoceno to a lower term, viewing him as an accomplice for grappling the victim. On appeal, the court found Villoceno was not an accomplice, as there was no evidence he knew of or agreed to Cual's plan, and his struggling with the victim did not show unity with Cual's

Uploaded by

Kayee Kat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

FACTS: Accused-appellants Dario Cabanas Cual and Dario Maranan Villoceno were charged w

ith the crime of murder. The information filed states that the two accused, armed with a sharp
bolo attacked and killed Ramil Macasalhig Sabturani.

The trial court was of the impression that the prosecution's version of the events and witnesses
was more credible than those of the defense. It struck down appellant's tale of self-defense
particularly of the contention of the defense that the victim was the aggressor and that he was
armed with a lead pipe.

The court also stated that the presence of 21 stab wounds could not have been inflicted without
the conspiracy and mutual participation of the two accused-appellants. Wit h respect to accused-
appellant Dario Villoceno, the court was convinced that he was an accomplice to the murder as
his act of grappling with the victim for the possession of a lead pipe gave accused-appellant
Dario Cual the "necessary inspi ration and impetus in consummating the act of murder. 

The court held the two accused guilty sentencing Dario Cual to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua for not being a heinous crime, and Dario Villoceno to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Temporal which is the next lower i n degree to that of reclusion
perpetua. 

Issue: Whether or not the deliberate grappling of the victim by Villocenco for the possession of a
steel pipe was sufficient to hold him as an accomplice?

Held: No. Under current jurisprudence, in order that a person may be considered an accomplice,
the following requisites must concur: (1) community of design; that is, knowing the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) that
he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention
of supplying material and moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and (3)
that there be a relation between the acts and those attributed to the person charged as an
accomplice. In the case at bench, there is nothing in the records which show that accused-
appellant Villoceno knew that accused Cual was going to hack Ramil Sabturani. Neither was it
shown that accused-appellant Villoceno concurred in the criminal design of his co-accused. The
only involvement of accused-appellant Cual in the incident was when he was engaged in a
struggle with the victim just before Villoceno made his initial attack on the victim. This
circumstance does not by itself show his unity with the criminal design of Villoceno. On this
point, we are inclined to believe his testimony that the struggle was not deliberate on his part and
that, in fact, it was the victim who initiated the struggle. The victim, who had just been deprived
of a job opportunity by accused-appellant Cual, surely had more reason to feel aggrieved and
thus engage accused-appellant Cual to a fight. The fact that accused-appellant Cual immediately
disengaged from his struggle with the victim after Villoceno's attack is yet another indication that
he is innocent of the charge against him. Verily, if he had indeed conspired with Villoceno, he
would have continued to hold the victim and prevent him from escaping until he expired from
Villoceno's attack.

You might also like