Court denies motion of 2 fratmen

The Regional Trial Court has found no reason to change its earlier decision to convict Alpha Kappa Rho member Sherwin Que and his supposed accomplice Anthony John Apura for the crime of murder.

Judge Bienvenido Saniel, Jr. of RTC Branch 20 yesterday denied Que and Apura’s motion for reconsideration, saying there is no cogent reason “to alter, amend or reconsider” the April 10, 2007 decision.

Saniel had sentenced Que to life imprisonment and Apura to 14 years in prison for the death of university student Mark James Enriquez in 2003. Saniel also ordered both men to jointly pay Enriquez’ heirs P50,000 as indemnity and another P50,000 as moral damages and for other costs.

In a five-page order, Saniel said Que’s contention that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense as he reportedly only defended himself during a rumble inside the restobar was not corroborated even by his lone witness.

On the contrary, evidence has established that Que went near Enriquez and shot the victim at close range. In fact, when the first shot misfired, he again pulled the trigger.

Saniel also said that the prosecution has proven treachery on Que’s part when he shot Enriquez “in a sudden and unexpected manner while the victim was probably in a sitting or kneeling position, thus, ensuring its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might take.”

Meanwhile, Saniel said that Apura’s act of striking Enriquez from behind with a beer bottle was what started the chain of events that culminated in the shooting.

“This act of accused Apura manifests his cooperation and concurrence to the criminal design of accused Que as it betrays a clear intention on his part to extend moral and material aid to facilitate the execution of the crime,” Saniel said.

In convicting both accused, Saniel said the testimonies of the prosecution’s witness were “clear and definite” to hold Que liable as principal in the crime of murder.

Enriquez had been mistaken as member of rival fraternity Tau Gamma when Que shot him on July 19, 2003 when a rumble ensued at Unibeersities Restobar between members of the two fraternities.

In his motion for reconsideration, Que had argued that there was no clear and convincing evidence of treachery, such that the prosecution’s testimony as how Enriquez was attacked “lacks sufficient detail showing conclusively that the mode and manner of the assault rendered the victim entirely defenseless.”

Que also said that the distance between Enriquez and his assailants and number of times he was struck and thrown at with broken bottles before he was shot should have sufficiently forewarned him of the greater danger and could have prompted him to escape.

For his part, Apura had said he could not be considered accomplice to the crime of murder such that he should be held liable only for the crime of physical injuries. He also asked the court to modify the conviction of murder to homicide.

The pleading reads that while the court was correct in ruling out the presence of conspiracy, “it committed grave error, with due respect, in fixing  Apura’s criminal liability as that of an accomplice.”

Apura contended that for one to be considered an accomplice, he must have knowledge of the criminal design of the principal by direct participation and concurs with the latter’s purpose.

Que, an Akrho member for 14 years, last year admitted to the shooting when he took the witness stand but claimed it was purely an accident and that he was just defending himself when a rumble ensued. He had apologized in open court. — Joeberth M. Ocao/MEEV