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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 222892)

Factual Background

On July 18, 2003, at Unibeersities Resto Bar in Cebu City, Mark James Enriquez was struck on the head with a beer bottle by a man later identified as Anthony John Apura, according to waiter Christian Elly Labay. After Apura’s initial blow, three other persons struck Enriquez with beer bottles. Accused Sherwin "Bungot" Que then fired a handgun, which misfired on the first attempt; on a subsequent shot Enriquez was hit in the head and later died from the gunshot wound. Attending physician Dr. Wyben Briones testified to a gunshot injury and additional blunt-force laceration and contusion consistent with assault by a blunt object.

Charges and Information

An Information charged Apura, Que, and unnamed companions with Murder, alleging connivance, confederation, and mutual assistance, and that the offense was committed with an unlicensed handgun, deliberate intent, intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation, resulting in Enriquez’s death on July 21, 2003.

Trial Proceedings and Evidence

The prosecution presented the testimony of Christian Elly Labay, Mark Anthony Lapatis, Jose Wilfredo Cala, Dr. Wyben Briones, and Dr. Gil Macato. The defense presented testimony of Anthony John Apura, Sherwin Que, and Hanzel Lauron. Apura testified that he assaulted the victim only after a companion, Jose Perez, pointed to a man who allegedly had boxed Perez and appeared to be drawing a black hunting knife; Apura claimed he swung his beer bottle in fear and then fled. Que admitted bringing a gun, testified that a fight erupted, and maintained that the shooting was an accident and without intent to kill.

RTC Decision

The Regional Trial Court, after trial, found both Sherwin Que and Anthony John Apura guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. The RTC declared Que a principal and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; it found Apura guilty as an accomplice and imposed an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of six years and one day of prision mayor and a maximum of fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal. The RTC ordered joint and several indemnity and moral damages of P50,000.00 each and costs, and directed issuance of warrants against co-accused at large.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications. It upheld Que’s conviction with reclusion perpetua and modified Apura’s maximum term to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal while maintaining the minimum term. The CA declared Apura ineligible for parole, held accessory penalties included in the principal penalty, and ordered joint and several civil liability comprising P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, P30,000.00 exemplary damages, and P4,431,013.62 actual damages, with interest at six percent from the date of the incident to finality and twelve percent thereafter, and directed enforcement measures including cancellation of bail and issuance of alias warrants.

Issues Raised in the Petition

Anthony John Apura raised four principal issues: alleged grave abuse of discretion by the CA in crediting the testimony of Lapatis despite claimed inconsistencies; error in finding community of criminal design and unity of purpose between Apura and Que; misapplication of law on accomplices resulting in Apura’s liability as accomplice rather than separate liability for physical injuries; and improper awarding of actual damages inconsistent with law and jurisprudence.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner argued that the testimony of prosecution witness Lapatis was riddled with inconsistencies and self-contradictions rendering it incredible; that the prosecution failed to prove community of criminal intent or concurrence with Que’s criminal purpose; that the requisites for liability as an accomplice were not satisfied; and that awards for actual damages lacked the requisite proof, rendering the monetary awards excessive or unsupported.

Respondent’s Position and Lower Courts’ Findings

The People of the Philippines relied on witness testimony and medical evidence to establish the elements of Murder and the participation of the accused. The CA rejected Que’s plea of self-defense for failure to prove unlawful aggression. Both the RTC and the CA found that Apura’s initial assault on the victim with a bottle constituted a prior or simultaneous act that cooperated in the execution of the offense, demonstrating unity of purpose and placing Apura within the ambit of Article 18, Revised Penal Code as an accomplice rather than a mere separate assailant.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision with modification as to civil liabilities and damages. The Court confirmed that Apura was an accomplice and that the prosecution established the elements of murder and that self-defense was not proven by Que. The Court modified the monetary awards: it substituted temperate damages of P50,000.00 in lieu of the CA’s P4,431,013.62 actual damages because the heirs failed to substantiate expenses with sufficient receipts; it apportioned civil liabilities between principal and accomplice in accordance with precedent so that Sherwin Que was ordered to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P33,333.00 moral damages, P20,000.00 exemplary damages, and P33,333.00 temperate damages, while Anthony John Apura was ordered to pay P25,000.00 civil indemnity, P25,000.00 moral damages, P25,000.00 exemplary damages, and P16,667.00 temperate damages. All awards were to earn six percent interest per annum from the date of finality until full payment.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed the requisites for liability as an accomplice under Article 18, Revised Penal Code: (1) a community of design whereby the accomplice, knowing the criminal design of the principal, concurs in purpose; (2) cooperation in the execution by previous or simultaneous act with intention to supply material or moral aid in an efficacious way; and (3) a relation between the acts of the principal and those attributed to the accomplice. The Court found that by striking the victim first, Apura commenced the chain of events that facilitated the killing and thus rendered material assistance knowingly and intentionally. The Court treated minor inconsistencies in witness testimony as immaterial to credibility and deferred to the RTC’s and CA’s factual findings, invoking the established rule that trial courts assessing witness demeanor occupy the superior position to judge credibility. On damages, the Court applied the allocation principle from People v. Tampus that the principal bears two-thirds and the accomplice one-

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 222892)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ANTHONY JOHN APURA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated March 2, 2016 seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision dated May 29, 2014.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES was the respondent in the criminal prosecution for murder under Information filed in RTC, Branch 20, Cebu City, Criminal Case No. CBU-66703.
The appeal arose from the Court of Appeals' disposition in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 00873 which affirmed with modifications the April 10, 2007 decision of the Regional Trial Court.
The Supreme Court resolved the petition and rendered judgment denying the petition and affirming the Court of Appeals with modifications.

Key Factual Allegations

On July 18, 2003, victim Mark James Enriquez was at Unibeersities Resto Bar in Cebu City when he was struck on the head and subsequently shot.
Witness Christian Elly Labay identified the man who first struck Enriquez with a bottle as Apura.
Three other persons with accused Sherwin "Bungot" Que struck Enriquez with beer bottles, and accused Que fired a handgun that ultimately hit Enriquez in the head.
After the shooting, Apura, accused Que, and their companions exited the bar and boarded a white van bearing plate number GJM-961.
The victim was treated by Dr. Wyben Briones and later died of the gunshot wound to the head, with medical findings of a lacerated wound consistent with blunt force and a fracture of the proximal phalanx caused by a bullet.

Evidence Presented

The prosecution presented the testimony of Christian Elly Labay, Mark Anthony Lapatis, Jose Wilfredo Cala, Dr. Wyben Briones, and Dr. Gil Macato.
The defense presented the testimony of Apura, accused Sherwin Que, and Hanzel Lauron.
Forensic and medical testimony established the gunshot wound as the immediate cause of death and documented other blunt-force injuries consistent with bottle strikes.

Defense Contentions

Apura testified that he struck the victim because he believed the victim had attacked his companion Jose Perez and had purportedly produced an object resembling a black hunting knife.
Apura maintained he acted out of fear and fled the scene thereafter.
Accused Que admitted possessing and firing a handgun during a commotion but claimed the shooting was accidental and denied intent to kill; Lauron corroborated Que's account.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court found accused Sherwin Que guilty as principal in the crime of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The RTC found Apura guilty as an accomplice to murder and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
The RTC ordered joint and several payment of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages to the heirs of the victim and directed warrants for the accused who remained at large.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the RTC decision and found accused Que guilty and Apura guilty as an accomplice.
The CA adjusted Apura's maximum penalty to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal and ordered accessory penalties as included in the principal penalty.
The CA awarded P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages, and P4,431,013.62 as actual damages, with interests, all to be paid jointly and severally by Que and Apura.
The CA rejecte