G.R. No. 222892 - Apura vs. People

On July 18, 2003, at Unibeersities Resto Bar in Cebu City, the victim Mark James Enriquez, along with his cousin and another individual, was present when events leading to his attack unfolded.
During the incident, while Enriquez offered a shot of beer to Christian Elly Labay (a waiter), Labay observed a man striking Enriquez with a bottle on his head.
Labay later identified the man who struck Enriquez as petitioner Anthony John Apura.
Subsequent to Apura’s action, three other individuals, who accompanied accused Sherwin “Bungot” Que, also attacked Enriquez by hitting him with beer bottles.
Accused Que then attempted to shoot Enriquez; his first shot misfired, but on a second attempt, a shot hit Enriquez on the head, contributing critically to the fatal injuries.

After the assault and the attempted shooting, Apura, accused Que, and the three accomplices exited the bar and proceeded toward the Grand Convention Center where they boarded a white van (plate number GJM-961).
The victim was rushed to the hospital where, under the care of Dr. Wyben Briones, he later succumbed to injuries—including a gunshot wound to the head and blunt trauma identified by autopsy—resulting in his death.

An Information charging Apura, accused Que, and the other companions was filed for the crime of Murder, emphasizing elements such as premeditation, deliberate intent to kill, treachery, and the use of an unlicensed handgun.
During arraignment, Apura and his co-accused pleaded “not guilty,” leading to a trial on the merits.
The prosecution presented testimonies from witnesses including Labay, Mark Anthony Lapatis, Jose Wilfredo Cala, Dr. Briones, and Dr. Gil Macato, while the defense called Apura, accused Que, and Hanzel Lauron.
Apura’s version of events included being invited to the bar by Jose Perez, witnessing an altercation that allegedly involved another unidentified individual armed with a knife, and then swinging a beer bottle at the person pointed out by Perez.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on April 10, 2007, convicting accused Que as the principal for Murder (with reclusion perpetua) and Apura as an accomplice, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
In addition, the RTC ordered both offenders to pay the heirs of the victim specified sums as indemnity and moral damages, and let warrant arrest the remaining accused who were at-large.
The Court of Appeals (CA) on May 29, 2014, affirmed the RTC decision with modifications that included adjustments on penalties, the inappearance of ineligibility for parole (in the case of Apura), and recalculated awards for civil indemnity, moral, exemplary, and actual (later reformulated as temperate) damages.
The CA also denied the defense’s arguments regarding the inconsistencies in key witness Lapatis’ testimony and maintained that there was sufficient evidence of a community of criminal design between Apura and accused Que.

Petitioner Apura filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (dated March 2, 2016), challenging the factual findings and the legal conclusions of the CA notably on:

The credit given to allegedly inconsistent testimony of witness Lapatis.
The determination of a community of criminal design between him and accused Que.
The imposition of accomplice liability rather than individual liability for physical injuries.
The computation and award of damages which he argued were not substantiated with adequate proof.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting significant credit to the testimony of witness Lapatis, amidst identified inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Whether the CA erred in its ruling that established a community of criminal design between petitioner Apura and accused Que, by inferring that Apura’s actions were in unison with the criminal purpose of accused Que as required for accomplice liability.

Whether the CA committed reversible error in applying the law on accomplice liability—holding Apura liable only as an accomplice and not separately and individually responsible for the physical injuries inflicted upon the victim.

Whether the CA’s award of actual (reformulated as temperate) damages and the apportionment of civil, moral, and exemplary damages is inconsistent with existing legal standards and jurisprudence, thereby constituting grave abuse of discretion.