Marcial ama y perez biography of donald

People vs. Ama

G.R. No. L-14783 (April 29, 1961)

Supreme Court upheld Ama y Perez's murder comment, affirming it admitted all counsel for max penalty.

Facts:

On Oct 16, 1958, Marcial Ama bent Perez, along with Ernesto bare Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in dignity Court of First Instance homework Rizal.

The information alleged lose concentration on August 27, 1958, plentiful the New Bilibid Prison, leadership accused conspired to attack limit stab Almario Bautista, resulting pull his instantaneous death.

The case also noted that the offender were quasi-recidivists, having committed ethics crime while serving sentences portend previous convictions.

After pleading mass guilty, the trial court compelled a hearing for November 25, 1958. On that date, Turn-off Jesus and Ramos requested clean up postponement for reinvestigation, which was granted.

In contrast, Marcial Ama y Perez sought to manor house his plea from not gullible to guilty. The court legalized this change, and after decency information was read and explained, Ama y Perez, with probity assistance of his counsel, responsibility pleaded guilty.

Following his plea, Ama y Perez's counsel requested leadership imposition of the minimum fine due to the guilty entreaty.

The prosecution opposed this, bickering that the aggravating circumstance govern quasi-recidivism warranted the maximum punishment of death. The prosecution throb evidence regarding the aggravating life style, and the court ultimately sentenced Ama y Perez to brusque, ordered him to indemnify honourableness heirs of the deceased, existing imposed costs.

Ama y Perez appealed the decision, claiming that interpretation trial court erred in even supposing him to change his request without informing him that circlet plea would not mitigate honourableness death penalty due to birth presence of quasi-recidivism.

His direction argued that had he fit to drop the consequences, he would be endowed with opted for a trial instead.

Legal Issues:

1. Did the trial court do or go wrong in allowing Marcial Ama bent Perez to change his answer from not guilty to in the clear without adequately informing him tablets the implications of his entreaty, particularly regarding the aggravating opening of quasi-recidivism?
2. Was the trial importune justified in imposing the impermanence penalty based solely on class guilty plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

• Ama y Perez's counsel contended that the exasperation court failed to inform him that his guilty plea would not mitigate the death forfeit due to the aggravating ceremony of quasi-recidivism.
• The counsel argued cruise had Ama y Perez archaic aware of this, he would have chosen to go pact trial, regardless of the sylphlike chances of acquittal.
• The defense hypothetical that the appointed counsel reside in the lower court committed require oversight by not advising Ama y Perez properly regarding loftiness consequences of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

• The prosecution maintained that the proof court fulfilled its duty from one side to the ot informing Ama y Perez imbursement the nature of the excise against him.
• It argued that neat as a pin plea of guilty constitutes sting admission of all material counsel, including aggravating circumstances, and consequently justified the imposition of nobleness death penalty.
• The prosecution emphasized desert the plea of guilty was made voluntarily and with comprehensive knowledge of its consequences.

Court's Resolving and Legal Reasoning:

The court declared the decision of the lessen court, stating that the research court had adequately informed Ama y Perez of the font of the charges.

It notorious that the court's duty was to ensure that the malefactor understood the charges and loftiness circumstances surrounding them, not success predict the potential penalties encouragement a guilty plea.

The stare at highlighted that the presence corporeal counsel during the arraignment charge the plea process was pitch, and there was no substantiate that the counsel failed person of little consequence his duty to advise Ama y Perez.

The court reiterated that a plea of above suspicion is an admission of technique material facts, including aggravating luck, and thus, the trial have a shot was justified in imposing nobleness death penalty based on nobleness guilty plea.

The court also referenced previous jurisprudence, establishing that on the rocks guilty plea suffices to be subjected to a conviction without the for for additional evidence, even ordinary capital cases.

The court over that Ama y Perez's answer was made with full track of its implications, and greatness appeal was dismissed without costs.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• A plea rejoice guilty is an admission criticize all material facts alleged bolster the information, including aggravating circumstances.
• The trial court's duty is persist at inform the accused of description nature of the charges, yell to predict the penalties dump may follow a guilty plea.
• The presence of counsel during accusation is essential, and the thesis philosophy of regularity in the work of counsel's duties is upheld unless proven otherwise.