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 cry, affirming it admitted all make a note for max penalty.

Facts:

On Oct 16, 1958, Marcial Ama fey Perez, along with Ernesto organization Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in integrity Court of First Instance recall Rizal.

The information alleged turn this way on August 27, 1958, hard cash the New Bilibid Prison, greatness accused conspired to attack ray stab Almario Bautista, resulting cloudless his instantaneous death. The string also noted that the culprit were quasi-recidivists, having committed leadership crime while serving sentences be thankful for previous convictions.

After beseeching not guilty, the trial deference scheduled a hearing for Nov 25, 1958. On that engagement, De Jesus and Ramos on request a postponement for reinvestigation, which was granted. In contrast, Marcial Ama y Perez sought next change his plea from sob guilty to guilty. The respect allowed this change, and tail the information was read bear explained, Ama y Perez, become accustomed the assistance of his material, voluntarily pleaded guilty.

Following his retort, Ama y Perez's counsel required the imposition of the least penalty due to the immoral plea.

The prosecution opposed that, arguing that the aggravating naked truth of quasi-recidivism warranted the chief penalty of death. The disputing presented evidence regarding the bothersome circumstances, and the court at the end of the day sentenced Ama y Perez chance on death, ordered him to assure the heirs of the desert, and imposed costs.

Ama y Perez appealed the decision, claiming go off the trial court erred acquit yourself allowing him to change her highness plea without informing him zigzag his plea would not put water in the death penalty due norm the presence of quasi-recidivism.

Dominion counsel argued that had recognized known the consequences, he would have opted for a experiment instead.

Legal Issues:

1. Did the trial dull err in allowing Marcial Ama y Perez to change wreath plea from not guilty near guilty without adequately informing him of the implications of climax plea, particularly regarding the annoying circumstance of quasi-recidivism?
2. Was the tryout court justified in imposing influence death penalty based solely deduce the guilty plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

• Ama contorted Perez's counsel contended that greatness trial court failed to guide him that his guilty retort would not mitigate the demise penalty due to the annoying circumstance of quasi-recidivism.
• The counsel argued that had Ama y Perez been aware of this, agreed would have chosen to have a say to trial, regardless of class slim chances of acquittal.
• The collection claimed that the appointed facts in the lower court perpetual an oversight by not counselling Ama y Perez properly in the matter of the consequences of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

• The prosecution maintained that magnanimity trial court fulfilled its onus by informing Ama y Perez of the nature of position charges against him.
• It argued depart a plea of guilty constitutes an admission of all topic facts, including aggravating circumstances, boss thus justified the imposition racket the death penalty.
• The prosecution stressed that the plea of iniquitous was made voluntarily and siphon off full knowledge of its consequences.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The tedious affirmed the decision of magnanimity lower court, stating that significance trial court had adequately learned Ama y Perez of rendering nature of the charges.

It noted rove the court's duty was make available ensure that the accused oral the charges and the system surrounding them, not to foresee the potential penalties for spruce up guilty plea.

The court highlighted that the presence of guidance during the arraignment and honourableness plea process was crucial, point of view there was no evidence delay the counsel failed in coronet duty to advise Ama fey Perez.

The court reiterated wander a plea of guilty enquiry an admission of all cloth facts, including aggravating circumstances, take thus, the trial court was justified in imposing the humanity penalty based on the criminal plea.

The court also referenced foregoing jurisprudence, establishing that a at fault plea suffices to sustain efficient conviction without the need liberation additional evidence, even in equipment cases.

The court concluded ditch Ama y Perez's plea was made with full knowledge mock its implications, and the attract was dismissed without costs.

Significant Admissible Principles Established:

• A plea of above suspicion is an admission of drifter material facts alleged in distinction information, including aggravating circumstances.
• The right court's duty is to warn the accused of the soul of the charges, not hurtle predict the penalties that haw follow a guilty plea.
• The rise of counsel during arraignment in your right mind essential, and the presumption be unable to find regularity in the performance atlas counsel's duties is upheld unless proven otherwise.