G.R. No. 167919 - Abaya vs. Ebdane, Jr.

The accused-appellant, Rommel D. Jimenez y Decena, was charged with murder under Article 248(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The information stated that on or about March 21, 2016, at around 3:00 pm in Infanta, Quezon, accused, with qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident intent to kill, suddenly attacked and shot the victim, Jiamiao Shi (aka Sandy Sy), resulting in his instantaneous death.

Norli Ducog (Norli), an eyewitness, testified via judicial affidavit that on the day of the incident, he observed a vehicle giving way to a van near Barangay Pilaway, Infanta.
A black motorcycle stopped beside the vehicle; the backrider alighted and shot the victim, then attempted another shot after the vehicle moved, but the gun jammed.
Norli described the motorcycle driver and backrider physically, claiming to have seen the backrider’s face and later positively identified accused-appellant from a police photo lineup and in open court.
Lowell Oblefias, victim’s helper, testified to seeing the victim’s lifeless body but did not witness the shooting.

The accused denied the charge and presented alibi witnesses—Arvin C. Alarcon, Fernando D. Alarcon, Richard I. Ravino, and Rodel M. San Valentin—who testified that accused was in Laguna on the day and time of the shooting.
Accused-appellant admitted previously living in Infanta and owning a dominantly black motorcycle, capable of traveling from Laguna to Infanta in 1.5 hours.

RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, relying heavily on Norli’s positive identification and the nature of the attack, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and awarding damages to the victim’s heirs.
CA affirmed RTC’s decision with modification on the damages awarded, affirming the credibility of Norli and finding the murder elements proven.

The accused challenged the reliability of Norli’s identification, emphasizing physical distance, attire of the assailant (white cap), and the lack of prior acquaintance.
Highlighted procedural lapses, specifically police officer’s non-testimony on the rogues gallery process and the suspicious timing of identifications.
Contended that treachery was not proven as the prosecution failed to establish deliberate means of attack.

Whether accused-appellant was positively and reliably identified as the perpetrator of the murder.
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved all elements of murder, including the presence of treachery.
Whether the defense of alibi effectively raises reasonable doubt on accused-appellant’s guilt.