Title
People vs. Carpo
Case
G.R. No. 132676
Decision Date
Apr 4, 2001
A 1996 grenade attack in Barangay Baligayan killed three and injured one. Witness Ruben Meriales identified Jaime Carpo, Warlito Ibao, Oscar Ibao, and Roche Ibao as perpetrators. The Supreme Court upheld their conviction for multiple murder and attempted murder, rejecting alibi defenses and affirming witness credibility.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132676)

Key Dates

Incident: August 25, 1996 (approx. 8:00 PM)
Witness’s Formal Statement: September 4, 1996
Criminal Complaint Filed: October 3, 1996
Arrests: Jaime Carpo (October 25, 1996), Roche Ibao (December 9, 1996), Oscar and Warlito Ibao (surrendered December 1996)
Trial: 1997–1998
Decision: April 4, 2001 (En Banc, Supreme Court)

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post–1990 decision)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 48 (complex crimes)
• Republic Act No. 7659 (death penalty statute)
• Civil Code, Article 1878 (attorney’s power to compromise)
• Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 23 (attorney’s authority)

Factual Background

On the evening of August 25, 1996, Ruben Meriales, prompted by his mother’s concern over their cow, concealed himself behind his kitchen washbasin. He observed Barangay Captain Jaime Carpo and Warlito Ibao near his barn, Roche Ibao by the mango tree, and Oscar Ibao approach the Dulay residence. Oscar lifted a sawali mat, hurled an object inside, and fled toward a creek with Roche. A grenade explosion followed, killing Florentino, Norwela, and five-year-old Nissan Dulay, and wounding Noemi Dulay. Ruben obtained transport for the injured, but Norwela and Nissan succumbed en route or upon arrival at the hospital.

Investigation and Criminal Complaint

Fearful of retaliation, Ruben delayed giving his statement until September 4, 1996. He identified the four accused as perpetrators, alleging the motive was to silence Florentino, who was to testify against Roche for his brother’s murder. On October 3, 1996, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court issued arrest warrants based solely on Ruben’s testimony.

Trial Proceedings and Evidence

Prosecution witnesses included Ruben Meriales, the surviving victim Noemi Dulay, two physicians, and responding police officers. Investigators recovered grenade fragments, a grenade shifting lever, and obtained statements from Teresita Dulay (widow of Florentino) and Ruben identifying the accused. The defense presented alibi testimony from the accused and their relatives, challenged Ruben’s credibility as harboring a grudge, and offered lie-detector results.

Defense Alibi and Motive Allegations

Jaime Carpo and wife testified he was 150 meters away in Barangay Libsong when the blast occurred and that crossing a deep creek would have delayed him at least thirty minutes. The Ibaos claimed attendance at a farewell party, denied hearing police calls, and asserted Roche did not reside near the crime scene. They characterized Ruben’s testimony as retaliatory for Roche’s alleged involvement in his brother’s death.

Trial Court Findings on Credibility

The trial court rejected the defense alibis and credited Ruben’s “straightforward testimony” as unimpeached and consistent. It found his fear explainable, held the lie-detector evidence inadmissible, and deemed the accused’s conduct (flight, tarriance, lack of inquiry after the blast) indicative of guilt.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Witness Credibility

The Supreme Court accorded deference to the trial court’s findings, ruled Ruben’s affidavit and testimony substantially consistent, and held any minor discrepancies immaterial. It found the admitted resentment against the Ibaos did not invalidate his account and deemed defense claims of jailhouse admission unsupported.

Conspiracy and Complex Crime

Relying on Ruben’s detailed narrative, the Court affirmed that the accused conspired: Jaime and Warlito positioned themselves to encourage Oscar, the principal assailant, with Roche as look-out. Under Article 48, the grenade explosion giving rise to three deaths and one wounding constituted a complex crime of multiple murder with attempted murder.

Penalty Imposed

In conformity with Article 48 and Section 6 of RA 7659, the Supreme Court affirmed the penalty of death (supreme penalty in its maximum) for each accused. Th





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.