Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN REYES Y GUTIERREZ

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 138266 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. PEDRO CABRERA QUISUMBING, J.
Lastly, appellant faults the prosecution for failing to present other witnesses who could identify the malefactors. It is settled, however, that in the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, her identification of the accused as the assailant should be given full faith and credit.[35] Moreover, the testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge for murder.[36] Thus, it was not incumbent on the prosecution to comply with the wish of the defense to present more witnesses when one eyewitness would suffice.
	GR Nos. 145007-08 2003-01-28	FIDEL AMARILLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On December 2, 1999, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the denial of the motion for reconsideration on the ground that no new evidence was discovered which materially affects the resolution, and no errors of law or irregularities were committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant.[6] It also recommended the filing of an additional information with the Sandiganbayan, considering that only one charge was filed despite the approved EPIB finding that there were two counts of estafa committed by petitioners. Likewise, it was observed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor that the information in Criminal Case No. 25518 contained some defects such as (a) the non-inclusion of the phrase "committing the offense in relation to office", and (b) failure to state the participation of accused Loreto G. Suril, et al.[7] Hence, the Special Prosecutor recommended the amendment of the information in Criminal Case No. 25518.
	GR Nos. 145007-08 2003-01-28	FIDEL AMARILLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On December 2, 1999, the Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the denial of the motion for reconsideration on the ground that no new evidence was discovered which materially affects the resolution, and no errors of law or irregularities were committed prejudicial to the interest of the movant.[6] It also recommended the filing of an additional information with the Sandiganbayan, considering that only one charge was filed despite the approved EPIB finding that there were two counts of estafa committed by petitioners. Likewise, it was observed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor that the information in Criminal Case No. 25518 contained some defects such as (a) the non-inclusion of the phrase "committing the offense in relation to office", and (b) failure to state the participation of accused Loreto G. Suril, et al.[7] Hence, the Special Prosecutor recommended the amendment of the information in Criminal Case No. 25518.