G.R. No. 190798 January 27, 2016
RONALD IBAÑEZ, EMILIO IBAÑEZ, and DANIEL “BOBOT” IBAÑEZ, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Ronald Ibañez, Emilio Ibañez, and Daniel “Bobot” Ibañez, together with co-accused Boyet Ibañez and David Ibañez (at large), were charged with Frustrated Homicide for allegedly stoning, hitting, and stabbing Rodolfo M. Lebria on July 15, 2001, in Las Piñas City. The Information alleged conspiracy and that timely medical assistance prevented Rodolfo’s death. Petitioners pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, as testified by Rodolfo, his daughter Ruth, and his wife Salvacion, was that after Rodolfo uttered a complaint about garbage in front of his house at around 1:00 a.m., Emilio and Boyet threw stones at him, hitting his forehead. David then hit him on the head with a shovel. Ronald held Rodolfo, while Boyet and Bobot simultaneously stabbed him in the abdomen, causing him to lose consciousness. Rodolfo was hospitalized, underwent exploratory laparotomy, and incurred medical expenses.
The defense presented a different version. Ronald claimed Rodolfo was the aggressor, destroying property and stabbing him. Bobot claimed he rushed to help his father but was also stabbed by Rodolfo, and during a struggle for the knife, Rodolfo was accidentally stabbed. Emilio interposed alibi, claiming he was working overtime one kilometer away. The defense presented medical certificates for Ronald and Bobot.
Regarding trial representation, during arraignment, petitioners were assisted by counsel de oficio. At a June 18, 2003 hearing for the prosecution’s evidence, their appointed counsel de oficio, Atty. Manzano, failed to appear despite notice, and Ronald was absent. The trial court deemed the right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses waived, fined Atty. Manzano, and issued a warrant for Ronald’s arrest. Atty. Manzano later withdrew, and a new counsel de oficio was appointed.

ISSUE

The core issue, as framed by the provided text, pertains to the petitioners’ conviction for frustrated homicide and the proceedings leading thereto. The text details the factual versions and the procedural incident concerning representation, but the specific legal issue for the Supreme Court’s review is not fully stated in the provided excerpt.

RULING

The provided text is an excerpt from the Supreme Court Decision. It outlines the factual background and the procedural history, including the trial court’s conviction of the petitioners for frustrated homicide and its affirmation with modifications by the Court of Appeals. However, the specific ruling of the Supreme Court—its final disposition on the appeal, its analysis of the errors assigned, and its conclusion on the petitioners’ guilt or innocence—is not contained in the provided text. The text cuts off during the narration of the trial court proceedings following the appointment of a new counsel de oficio. Therefore, a complete ruling cannot be derived from the given material.