Case Digest (G.R. No. 222892)
Facts:
Anthony John Apura v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222892, March 18, 2021, First Division, Peralta, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Anthony John Apura was prosecuted along with co-accused Sherwin "Bungot" Que and others for the July 18, 2003 killing of Mark James Enriquez at Unibeersities Resto Bar, Cebu City. The Information charged the group with Murder alleging treachery, evident premeditation and use of an unlicensed firearm; Apura pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits followed.
Factual testimony at trial included eyewitness accounts by bar waiter Christian Elly Labay and waiter Mark Anthony Lapatis, who described seeing Apura strike Enriquez on the head with a beer bottle, then step aside while Que and three companions further assaulted Enriquez and Que ultimately fired at the victim; the victim later died from a gunshot wound to the head. Medical witnesses, including Dr. Wyben Briones and the autopsy surgeon Dr. Gil Macato, testified as to the wounds and cause of death.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cebu City, in a decision promulgated April 10, 2007, found Que guilty as principal of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; it found Apura guilty as an accomplice to Murder and imposed an indeterminate sentence (minimum prision mayor to maximum reclusion temporal), and ordered joint and several civil damages against the accused. Apura appealed.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA‑G.R. CEB CR‑HC No. 00873, rendered a decision dated May 29, 2014 affirming the RTC’s convictions with modifications: it adjusted Apura’s maximum term, ordered civil damages including an award of P4,431,013.62 as actual damages, apportioned liability between Que (principal) and Apura (accomplice), and directed cancellation of Apura’s bail and warrants against other at‑large accused. Apura filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on March 2, 2016, challen...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in crediting the testimony of prosecution witness Lapatis despite alleged inconsistencies and contradictions?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding a community of criminal design between Apura and Que and in concluding that Apura agreed to Que’s criminal purpose?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the law on accomplices and in holding Apura liable as an accomplice rather than only for physical injuries?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in awarding ac...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)