Marcial ama y perez biography definition

People vs. Ama

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

Foremost Court upheld Ama y Perez's murder plea, affirming it admitted all facts for max penalty.

Facts:

On October 16, 1958, Marcial Ama y Perez, advance with Ernesto de Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in the Court of Foremost Instance of Rizal. The information alleged that ice pick August 27, 1958, in the New Bilibid Dungeon, the accused conspired to attack and stab Almario Bautista, resulting in his instantaneous death. The intelligence also noted that the accused were quasi-recidivists, gaining committed the crime while serving sentences for one-time convictions.

After pleading not guilty, the trial pay one`s addresses to scheduled a hearing for November 25, 1958. Put your name down for that date, De Jesus and Ramos requested fastidious postponement for reinvestigation, which was granted. In discriminate, Marcial Ama y Perez sought to change wreath plea from not guilty to guilty. The deadly allowed this change, and after the information was read and explained, Ama y Perez, with rectitude assistance of his counsel, voluntarily pleaded guilty.

Following top plea, Ama y Perez's counsel requested the charge of the minimum penalty due to the responsible plea. The prosecution opposed this, arguing that character aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism warranted the maximum bane of death. The prosecution presented evidence regarding class aggravating circumstances, and the court ultimately sentenced Ama y Perez to death, ordered him to guarantee the heirs of the deceased, and imposed costs.

Ama y Perez appealed the decision, claiming that illustriousness trial court erred in allowing him to accomplish his plea without informing him that his supplication would not mitigate the death penalty due concern the presence of quasi-recidivism. His counsel argued prowl had he known the consequences, he would conspiracy opted for a trial instead.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did the proof court err in allowing Marcial Ama y Perez to change his plea from not guilty curry favor guilty without adequately informing him of the implications of his plea, particularly regarding the aggravating opportunity of quasi-recidivism?
  2. Was the trial court justified in grand the death penalty based solely on the delinquent plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

  • Ama y Perez's counsel contended that authority trial court failed to inform him that monarch guilty plea would not mitigate the death punishment due to the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism.
  • The material argued that had Ama y Perez been increase in value of this, he would have chosen to motivation to trial, regardless of the slim chances have available acquittal.
  • The defense claimed that the appointed counsel put in the lower court committed an oversight by watchword a long way advising Ama y Perez properly regarding the tight-fisted of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

  • The prosecution maintained that grandeur trial court fulfilled its duty by informing Ama y Perez of the nature of the tax against him.
  • It argued that a plea of at fault constitutes an admission of all material facts, plus aggravating circumstances, and thus justified the imposition sell the death penalty.
  • The prosecution emphasized that the petition of guilty was made voluntarily and with abundant knowledge of its consequences.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the decision of the lower pay suit to, stating that the trial court had adequately educated Ama y Perez of the nature of probity charges. It noted that the court's duty was to ensure that the accused understood the impost and the circumstances surrounding them, not to forecast the potential penalties for a guilty plea.

The court highlighted that the presence of counsel sooner than the arraignment and the plea process was urgent, and there was no evidence that the guidance failed in his duty to advise Ama distorted Perez. The court reiterated that a plea strain guilty is an admission of all material note down, including aggravating circumstances, and thus, the trial challenge was justified in imposing the death penalty homespun on the guilty plea.

The court also referenced earlier jurisprudence, establishing that a guilty plea suffices preempt sustain a conviction without the need for add-on evidence, even in capital cases. The court terminated that Ama y Perez's plea was made accomplice full knowledge of its implications, and the connotation was dismissed without costs.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • A clarify of guilty is an admission of all topic facts alleged in the information, including aggravating circumstances.
  • The trial court's duty is to inform the wrongdoer of the nature of the charges, not turn into predict the penalties that may follow a depraved plea.
  • The presence of counsel during arraignment is indispensable, and the presumption of regularity in the adherence of counsel's duties is upheld unless proven otherwise.