Title
Supreme Court
Decasa vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 172184
Decision Date
Jul 10, 2007
Nestor Decasa convicted of homicide for hacking Teodoro Luzano during a dispute over ricefield water; eyewitness testimony upheld, alibi rejected, damages modified.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-16-3471)

Incident Details

The incident occurred on August 29, 1992, when Nestor Decasa allegedly assaulted Teodoro Luzano with a sharp-edged weapon. The Information filed against Decasa stated that he acted with intent to kill when he inflicted the injuries leading to Luzano's death. The death was determined to be caused by hypovolemic shock secondary to hemorrhage due to multiple wounds.

Criminal Proceedings

Decasa was arraigned on December 22, 1992, entering a plea of "Not Guilty." During the trial, many prosecution witnesses testified against him, while only Decasa’s testimony was heard after the case was re-raffled to another Regional Trial Court (RTC) branch.

Prosecution's Case

The prosecution presented several witnesses, including Rogelio Boco, who claimed to have witnessed Decasa attacking Luzano. Other testimonies corroborated the assertion that Decasa had previously threatened Luzano over disputes related to the source of water for their ricefields. The testimony from Dr. Maria Nenita Tumanda, who conducted the autopsy, indicated that the cause of death was consistent with the alleged attack by Decasa.

Verdict of the RTC

On August 21, 1998, the RTC found Decasa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The court emphasized the credibility of Rogelio Boco as an eyewitness and dismissed the testimonies from Decasa’s defense as lacking sufficient weight. The RTC sentenced Decasa to an indeterminate penalty and ordered him to pay indemnity to the heirs of Luzano.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Dissatisfied with the RTC’s decision, Decasa filed an appeal, leading to a ruling by the Court of Appeals on April 26, 2005, which affirmed the RTC's judgment but modified the penalty. The appellate court upheld the conviction based on the testimonies of the witnesses and concluded that Decasa was guilty of the charges.

Grounds for Petition

Decasa subsequently filed a petition arguing that the appellate court erred by not declaring that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and alleging inconsistencies in witness testimonies. He contested the reliability of Rogelio Boco's account as well as the weight given to other testimonies supporting the prosecution.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court assessed Decasa’s arguments critically. It determined that inconsistencies in witness testimonies were not substantial enoug

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.