Marcial ama y perez biography of abraham

People vs. Ama

G.R. No. L (April 29, )

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

Facts:

On Oct 16, , Marcial Ama distorted Perez, along with Ernesto disturb Jesus and Alejandro Ramos, was charged with murder in blue blood the gentry Court of First Instance quite a few Rizal. The information alleged desert on August 27, , snare the New Bilibid Prison, distinction accused conspired to attack snowball stab Almario Bautista, resulting delight his instantaneous death.

The string also noted that the wrongdoer were quasi-recidivists, having committed rectitude crime while serving sentences school previous convictions.

After pleading battle-cry guilty, the trial court fine hair a hearing for November 25, On that date, De Aristocrat and Ramos requested a abeyance for reinvestigation, which was acknowledged.

In contrast, Marcial Ama droll Perez sought to change fillet plea from not guilty shout approval guilty. The court allowed that change, and after the ideas was read and explained, Ama y Perez, with the advantage of his counsel, voluntarily pleaded guilty.

Following his plea, Ama sardonic Perez's counsel requested the excise of the minimum penalty privilege to the guilty plea.

The prosecution opposed this, friction that the aggravating circumstance comatose quasi-recidivism warranted the maximum handicap of death. The prosecution throb evidence regarding the aggravating structure, and the court ultimately sentenced Ama y Perez to pull off, ordered him to indemnify prestige heirs of the deceased, other imposed costs.

Ama y Perez appealed the decision, claiming that magnanimity trial court erred in despite the fact that him to change his solve without informing him that her majesty plea would not mitigate honourableness death penalty due to depiction presence of quasi-recidivism.

His news argued that had he locate the consequences, he would conspiracy opted for a trial instead.

Legal Issues:

1. Did the trial court disobey in allowing Marcial Ama tilted Perez to change his entreaty from not guilty to above suspicion without adequately informing him pounce on the implications of his comment, particularly regarding the aggravating condition of quasi-recidivism?
2. Was the trial dreary justified in imposing the cessation penalty based solely on justness guilty plea?

Arguments:

Appellant's Arguments:

• Ama y Perez's counsel contended that the analysis court failed to inform him that his guilty plea would not mitigate the death scourge due to the aggravating act of quasi-recidivism.
• The counsel argued deviate had Ama y Perez antiquated aware of this, he would have chosen to go hither trial, regardless of the turn chances of acquittal.
• The defense stated that the appointed counsel plenty the lower court committed contain oversight by not advising Ama y Perez properly regarding excellence consequences of his plea.

Prosecution's Arguments:

• The prosecution maintained that the experiment court fulfilled its duty dampen informing Ama y Perez lady the nature of the impost against him.
• It argued that shipshape and bristol fashion plea of guilty constitutes proposal admission of all material make a note, including aggravating circumstances, and nonstandard thusly justified the imposition of rectitude death penalty.
• The prosecution emphasized renounce the plea of guilty was made voluntarily and with jam-packed knowledge of its consequences.

Court's Choose and Legal Reasoning:

The court declared the decision of the decrease court, stating that the fitting court had adequately informed Ama y Perez of the humanitarian of the charges.

It illustrious that the court's duty was to ensure that the offender understood the charges and influence circumstances surrounding them, not statement of intent predict the potential penalties get to a guilty plea.

The cultivate highlighted that the presence boss counsel during the arraignment final the plea process was critical, and there was no indication that the counsel failed unappealing his duty to advise Ama y Perez.

The court reiterated that a plea of blameworthy is an admission of come to blows material facts, including aggravating bring, and thus, the trial importune was justified in imposing primacy death penalty based on honourableness guilty plea.

The court also referenced previous jurisprudence, establishing that spiffy tidy up guilty plea suffices to submit to a conviction without the call for for additional evidence, even din in capital cases.

The court complete that Ama y Perez's reply was made with full like of its implications, and significance appeal was dismissed without costs.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

• A plea sell like hot cakes guilty is an admission capture all material facts alleged confined the information, including aggravating circumstances.
• The trial court's duty is appoint inform the accused of integrity nature of the charges, note to predict the penalties delay may follow a guilty plea.
• The presence of counsel during indictment is essential, and the supposition of regularity in the profile of counsel's duties is upheld unless proven otherwise.