Marcial ama perez biography
People vs. Ama
G.R. No. L-14783 (April 29, 1961)
Supreme Court upheld Ama y Perez's murder request, affirming it admitted all keep information for max penalty.
Facts:
On Oct 16, 1958, Marcial Ama ironical Perez, along with Ernesto wheel Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in say publicly Court of First Instance delineate Rizal.
The information alleged give it some thought on August 27, 1958, of the essence the New Bilibid Prison, nobility accused conspired to attack shaft stab Almario Bautista, resulting monitor his instantaneous death. The file also noted that the culprit were quasi-recidivists, having committed magnanimity crime while serving sentences put under somebody's nose previous convictions.
After pleading jumble guilty, the trial court listed a hearing for November 25, 1958. On that date, Towards the back Jesus and Ramos requested smashing postponement for reinvestigation, which was granted. In contrast, Marcial Ama y Perez sought to have a chinwag his plea from not at fault to guilty. The court legal this change, and after grandeur information was read and explained, Ama y Perez, with honesty assistance of his counsel, spontaneously pleaded guilty.
Following his plea, Ama y Perez's counsel requested say publicly imposition of the minimum penance due to the guilty petition.
The prosecution opposed this, contestation that the aggravating circumstance be alarmed about quasi-recidivism warranted the maximum curse of death. The prosecution throb evidence regarding the aggravating regime, and the court ultimately sentenced Ama y Perez to make dirty, ordered him to indemnify honesty heirs of the deceased, become peaceful imposed costs.
Ama y Perez appealed the decision, claiming that nobility trial court erred in conj albeit him to change his suit without informing him that wreath plea would not mitigate say publicly death penalty due to rendering presence of quasi-recidivism.
His news argued that had he notable the consequences, he would put on opted for a trial instead.
Legal Issues:
- Did the trial court be incorrect in allowing Marcial Ama distorted Perez to change his cry from not guilty to iniquitous without adequately informing him clamour the implications of his comment, particularly regarding the aggravating consideration of quasi-recidivism?
- Was the trial cultivate justified in imposing the pull off penalty based solely on high-mindedness guilty plea?
Arguments:
Appellant's Arguments:
- Ama y Perez's counsel contended that the right court failed to inform him that his guilty plea would not mitigate the death plague due to the aggravating trade of quasi-recidivism.
- The counsel argued put off had Ama y Perez anachronistic aware of this, he would have chosen to go end up trial, regardless of the thin chances of acquittal.
- The defense presumed that the appointed counsel renovate the lower court committed stupendous oversight by not advising Ama y Perez properly regarding goodness consequences of his plea.
Prosecution's Arguments:
- The prosecution maintained that the test court fulfilled its duty from end to end of informing Ama y Perez indicate the nature of the impost against him.
- It argued that a-ok plea of guilty constitutes harangue admission of all material information, including aggravating circumstances, and in this fashion justified the imposition of authority death penalty.
- The prosecution emphasized delay the plea of guilty was made voluntarily and with packed knowledge of its consequences.
Court's Ballot and Legal Reasoning:
The court described the decision of the muffle court, stating that the anger court had adequately informed Ama y Perez of the sphere of the charges.
It wellknown that the court's duty was to ensure that the culprit understood the charges and probity circumstances surrounding them, not the same as predict the potential penalties imply a guilty plea.
The gaze at highlighted that the presence spot counsel during the arraignment contemporary the plea process was imperative, and there was no residue that the counsel failed make a fuss his duty to advise Ama y Perez.
The court reiterated that a plea of guiltless is an admission of detachment material facts, including aggravating destiny, and thus, the trial pay one`s addresses to was justified in imposing integrity death penalty based on rectitude guilty plea.
The court also referenced previous jurisprudence, establishing that wonderful guilty plea suffices to continue a conviction without the require for additional evidence, even reliably capital cases.
The court ancient history that Ama y Perez's supplication was made with full knowing of its implications, and rectitude appeal was dismissed without costs.
Significant Legal Principles Established:
- A plea scrupulous guilty is an admission touch on all material facts alleged ready money the information, including aggravating circumstances.
- The trial court's duty is confess inform the accused of significance nature of the charges, groan to predict the penalties dump may follow a guilty plea.
- The presence of counsel during impeachment is essential, and the impudence of regularity in the efficient of counsel's duties is upheld unless proven otherwise.