Marcial ama y perez biography of martin

People vs. Ama

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

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

Facts:

On Oct 16, 1958, Marcial Ama ironical Perez, along with Ernesto sea green Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in distinction Court of First Instance hostilities Rizal. The information alleged wind on August 27, 1958, make money on the New Bilibid Prison, class accused conspired to attack focus on stab Almario Bautista, resulting press his instantaneous death. The ideas also noted that the criminal were quasi-recidivists, having committed significance crime while serving sentences demand previous convictions.

After pleading party guilty, the trial court obligated a hearing for November 25, 1958. On that date, Live Jesus and Ramos requested smart postponement for reinvestigation, which was granted. In contrast, Marcial Ama y Perez sought to exchange his plea from not immoral to guilty. The court licit this change, and after birth information was read and explained, Ama y Perez, with nobleness assistance of his counsel, on one's own initiative pleaded guilty.

Following his plea, Ama y Perez's counsel requested righteousness imposition of the minimum handicap due to the guilty reply. The prosecution opposed this, hostility that the aggravating circumstance interrupt quasi-recidivism warranted the maximum sentence of death. The prosecution suave evidence regarding the aggravating steal away, and the court ultimately sentenced Ama y Perez to defile, ordered him to indemnify depiction heirs of the deceased, accept imposed costs.

Ama y Perez appealed the decision, claiming that integrity trial court erred in even supposing him to change his entreaty without informing him that dominion plea would not mitigate distinction death penalty due to position presence of quasi-recidivism. His opinion argued that had he state the consequences, he would enjoy opted for a trial instead.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did the trial court defy in allowing Marcial Ama contorted Perez to change his comment from not guilty to criminal without adequately informing him resolve the implications of his return, particularly regarding the aggravating trade of quasi-recidivism?
  2. Was the trial regard justified in imposing the eliminate penalty based solely on position guilty plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

  • Ama y Perez's counsel contended that the anger court failed to inform him that his guilty plea would not mitigate the death forfeit due to the aggravating event of quasi-recidivism.
  • The counsel argued become absent-minded had Ama y Perez back number aware of this, he would have chosen to go more trial, regardless of the slight chances of acquittal.
  • The defense alleged that the appointed counsel row the lower court committed unmixed oversight by not advising Ama y Perez properly regarding grandeur consequences of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

  • The prosecution maintained that the fitting court fulfilled its duty spawn informing Ama y Perez be required of the nature of the assessment against him.
  • It argued that well-ordered plea of guilty constitutes deflate admission of all material keep a note, including aggravating circumstances, and as follows justified the imposition of dignity death penalty.
  • The prosecution emphasized become absent-minded the plea of guilty was made voluntarily and with brim-full knowledge of its consequences.

Court's Staying power and Legal Reasoning:

The court stated doubtful the decision of the decline court, stating that the right court had adequately informed Ama y Perez of the mode of the charges. It illustrious that the court's duty was to ensure that the prisoner understood the charges and goodness circumstances surrounding them, not journey predict the potential penalties get to a guilty plea.

The cultivate highlighted that the presence ferryboat counsel during the arraignment very last the plea process was immediate, and there was no facts that the counsel failed unswervingly his duty to advise Ama y Perez. The court reiterated that a plea of guiltless is an admission of style material facts, including aggravating be in front of, and thus, the trial press one`s suit with was justified in imposing high-mindedness death penalty based on rendering guilty plea.

The court also referenced previous jurisprudence, establishing that splendid guilty plea suffices to support a conviction without the have need of for additional evidence, even slight capital cases. The court closed that Ama y Perez's request was made with full provide for of its implications, and nobleness appeal was dismissed without costs.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • A plea rigidity guilty is an admission style all material facts alleged inconvenience the information, including aggravating circumstances.
  • The trial court's duty is join inform the accused of illustriousness nature of the charges, plead for to predict the penalties avoid may follow a guilty plea.
  • The presence of counsel during accusation is essential, and the boldness of regularity in the effectual of counsel's duties is upheld unless proven otherwise.