G.R. No. 222892 , March 18, 2021
Anthony John Apura, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

On July 18, 2003, at Unibeersities Resto Bar in Cebu City, the victim Mark James Enriquez was with friends. Waiter Christian Elly Labay witnessed petitioner Anthony John Apura strike Enriquez on the head with a beer bottle. Subsequently, three other persons with co-accused Sherwin “Bungot” Que also struck Enriquez with bottles. Accused Que then shot Enriquez in the head after a misfire. Enriquez died from the gunshot wound. An Information for Murder was filed against Apura, Que, and others. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both Apura and Que guilty of Murder, with Apura convicted as an accomplice. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modifications. Apura filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the prosecution witness was incredible, that there was no community of criminal design with Que’s group, that he should be liable only for physical injuries, and questioning the award of damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in crediting the testimony of prosecution witness Mark Anthony Lapatis despite alleged inconsistencies.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was a community of criminal design between Apura and Que’s group, making Apura an accomplice to Murder.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Apura liable as an accomplice instead of separately for physical injuries.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its award of actual damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the CA Decision with modification. The Court held:
1. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of witness Lapatis pertained to minor details and did not affect his credibility regarding the core fact of Apura’s participation. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect.
2. The requisites for accomplice liability were present: (a) community of design, as Apura, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, concurred with the latter’s purpose; and (b) cooperation in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. Apura’s act of striking the victim with a bottle initiated the attack, which was followed by the acts of Que’s companions and Que himself, demonstrating unity of purpose.
3. Apura is correctly liable as an accomplice to Murder, not separately for physical injuries. His act was not an independent crime but was integral to the execution of the murder, as it facilitated the shooting by Que.
4. The award of damages was modified. The Court set aside the award of actual damages for lack of sufficient proof and awarded temperate damages instead. The principal, Sherwin Que, was ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P33,333.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P33,333.00 as temperate damages. Petitioner Apura, as an accomplice, was ordered to pay P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P16,667.00 as temperate damages. All awards shall earn 6% interest per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until full payment.